This crazy story comes via the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), which is giving several academic institutions the cash to support research, education and other activities associated with climate solutions in agriculture. The goal is to uncover the impacts of climate variability and change on dairy and beef cattle, according to an agency announcement released this week.

“We have seen the impact that variable climate patterns have had on production agriculture for the past several years,” according to Obama’s USDA Secretary, Tom Vilsack. “These projects will deliver the best tools available to accurately measure and respond to the effects of climate on beef and dairy production.” This is the same guy who heads President Obama’s special White House Rural Council that among other things is supposed to expand “ecosystem markets” and develop “renewable energy projects.”

Vilsack has also overseen the distribution of billions of reparation dollars to minority farmers that claim they were discriminated by the government and under his leadership the USDA spends a record $80.4 billion annually on food stamps. Like his boss, Vilsack is dedicated to combatting global warming and has dedicated tens of millions of taxpayer dollars to a variety of green energy projects. Among them is a $30 million initiative to advance “biofuels, bioenergy and high-value biobased products” and a $12.2 million experiment to “accelerate bioenergy crop production.”

This month’s $19.5 million allocation aims to develop methods that will “increase the resiliency of dairy production systems while reducing greenhouse gas emissions” and “better understand vulnerability and resilience of Southern Great Plains beef in an environment of increased climate variability.” The academic teams will also develop an agricultural education curriculum with an “urban foods focus.”

In an apparent effort to justify spending large sums of taxpayer dollars on these experiments the government has published a variety of alarming reports over the years exposing the ills of climate change. One claims global warming is the “most visible environmental concerns of the 21st century” and could lead to a worldwide increase in mental illness and cancer. Others have determined that climate change will threaten the world’s food and water supplies and another asserts that it will destroy the Washington D.C. area and surrounding government infrastructure.

Other taxpayer-funded studies have claimed that global warming is a threat to national security because it will spread disease among people and animals and that it’s destroying infrastructure, crops and shorelines. Just a few days ago several members of Congress sponsored a resolution asserting that climate change will actually drive millions of poor women into prostitution!

This appears to be the icing on the cake for a U.S. government-backed movement fueled by climate change alarmists. In the last few years a variety of government-funded studies have claimed that global warming causes mental illness and cancer and that it threatens everything from national security to health, the world’s food supply and even water. One taxpayer-funded study revealed that global warming could wipe out government or at the very least destroy the Washington D.C. area and surrounding infrastructure.

Those who thought that couldn’t possibly be topped need to take a look at a resolution recently introduced in the House by Barbara Lee, a northern California Democrat who advocates for a murderous communist dictator. It asserts that warming temperatures will drive around 3 million people into poverty and that women will disproportionately face harmful impacts from climate change, particularly in poor and developing nations where they regularly assume increased responsibility for growing the family’s food and collecting water, fuel and other resources.

Here is where the hooker part comes in. Food insecure women with limited socioeconomic resources may be vulnerable to situations such as sex work, transactional sex, and early marriage that put them at risk for HIV, sexually transmitted infections, unplanned pregnancy and poor reproductive health, the resolution says.

“Whereas the direct and indirect effects of climate change have a disproportionate impact on marginalized women such as refugee and displaced persons, sexual minorities, religious or ethnic minorities, adolescent girls, and women and girls with disabilities and those who are HIV positive,” according to the resolution.

Women in the United States are particularly affected by climate-related disasters, the resolution points out. As evidence it offers this; 83% of “low-income single mothers” were displaced when Hurricane Katrina struck the Gulf Coast region several years ago. How did this happen? The “ability of women to adapt to climate change is constrained by a lack of economic freedoms, property and inheritance rights, as well as access to financial resources, education, family planning and reproductive health, and new tools, equipment, and technology.”

The resolution has some interesting recommendations, among them that congress recognize the “disparate impacts of climate change on women and the efforts of women to globally address climate change” and the use of “gender-sensitive frameworks in developing policies to address climate change.” Does anyone really know that this means?

Here is another good recommendation to remedy this tragedy; a commitment to educate and train women to “develop local resilience plans to address the effects of climate change” and a commitment to “empower women to have a voice in the planning, design, implementation and evaluation” of strategies to counter climate change. The rather amusing document ends by encouraging the president to integrate a gender approach in all policies and programs in the United States that are globally related to climate change and ensuring that those policies and programs support women globally to prepare for global warming.

It’s interesting to note that the Congresswoman behind this crazy measure is no stranger to controversy.  As head of the Congressional Black Caucus, Lee praised Cuban dictators Fidel and Raul Castro during a rendezvous on the communist island aimed at lifting U.S. sanctions against the notorious human rights violator that for years has appeared on the State Department’s terrorist-sponsoring nations.

A year later Lee gave the Supreme Court a minority quota mandate after pressing Justice Clarence Thomas, who happens to be black like the congresswoman, on the lack of diversity among the court’s prestigious clerkships. Lee skeptically asked Thomas about the court’s efforts to attract clerks from minority groups and particularly from law schools that are not in the prestigious Ivy League. It was an unusual topic for a House Appropriations subcommittee hearing on an unrelated subject.

It’s a goal the Obama administration has worked hard to meet. In the last four years a variety of government-funded studies have warned that global warming will make food and water dangerous, cause mental illness, cancer and threaten national security. In fact, under the Obama administration, a consortium of scientists from several government agencies—including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the State Department and National Institute of Environmental Health Science—have confirmed that global warming is one of the “most visible environmental concerns of the 21st century.”

As eerie as this may sound, it’s not even the full picture because the ocean actually masks the true rate of damage for periods as long as a decade, according to a government study from the National Science Foundation (NSF). According to this logic the crisis is way more severe than what it appears because the sea is storing the heat that damages the earth, making it appear as if there is a sort of hiatus in global warming when there really isn’t. When this ocean-stored heat will show its evil face will probably be the subject of the next taxpayer-funded study.

All this certainly makes a powerful case for the administration’s latest move of adding climate change to its 2013 High Risk List. Updated every two years to identify situations that could make the government vulnerable or programs that must be improved, the list is prepared before the start of a new Congress. It also includes enforcement of tax laws, Medicare, Medicaid, restructuring the U.S. Postal Service and protecting the nation’s cyber critical infrastructures, among others.

Climate change was added because it poses “significant financial risks,” according to the report, issued by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), announcing the new dangers this month. “Climate change is a complex, crosscutting issue that poses risks to many environmental and economic systems—including agriculture, infrastructure, ecosystems, and human health—and presents a significant financial risk to the federal government,” the report says.  

It goes on to reiterate a lot of what we’ve already seen in all those alarming government reports that warn about the ills of global warming. “Among other impacts, climate change could threaten coastal areas with rising sea levels, alter agricultural productivity, and increase the intensity and frequency of severe weather events.” In fact, “rare” events will become more common and intense due to climate change.

However, the report does acknowledge that “exact details cannot be predicted with certainty” though “there is a clear scientific understanding that climate change poses serious risks to human society and many of the physical and ecological systems upon which society depends, with the specific impacts of concern, and the relative likelihood of those impacts, varying significantly from place to place and over time.”

Never the less, the administration will move forward with an aggressive green initiative that has already cost American taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. It’s all “for the sake of our children and our future,” President Obama said during this month’s State of the Union Address. “I will direct my Cabinet to come up with executive actions we can take, now and in the future, to reduce pollution, prepare our communities for the consequences of climate change, and speed the transition to more sustainable sources of energy.”

Launched over the summer in Los Cabos, the Green Growth Action Alliance is a “global action-focused agenda for clean energy” headed by former Mexican President Felipe Calderon and it needs money, lots of it. For starters the new alliance claims there’s a $1 trillion annual shortfall in green infrastructure investment that can help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and all the other evil stuff that’s ruining the planet.

The idea is to get corporations with deep pockets to help out, but “public funding” is essential to “leverage private investment.” The money will promote free trade in green goods and services, achieve robust carbon pricing, end inefficient subsidies and other forms of fossil fuel support and accelerate low-carbon innovation. Undoubtedly, the U.S. is expected to provide a major portion of the funding for this new endeavor which is dear to President Obama’s heart.

This week, at an annual forum of world leaders in Switzerland, the Green Growth Action Alliance will promote its agenda and, undoubtedly hit prosperous countries like the U.S. up for money. The yearly powwow, which aims to shape global, regional and industry agendas, will offer a world stage for the Green Alliance to present its new report that determines “greening” global economic growth requires a $700 billion yearly investment that must span decades.

Calderon, whose Mexican presidency ended in November, says it’s clear that the world is facing a “climate crisis” with impacts to the global economy that could be devastating. The key to solving this potential devastation is to gather lots of government cash to meet this critical “climate challenge.” In the report Calderon puts it a bit more diplomatically, writing that “additional investment is needed to meet the climate challenge…” His ideal figure is $7 trillion per year!

The Obama Administration has already spent billions of dollars to save the developing world from the presumed ills of global warming, mainly through a program called Global Climate Change Initiative. In 2009 the administration gave $323 million to the program and the figure nearly tripled to $939 million in 2010. In 2011 funding dropped slightly to $819 million and in 2012 it dipped a bit more to $773 million. Last spring the administration asked Congress for an additional $770 million.

Uncle Sam has also funded other foreign programs that aim to counter global warming. For instance, a few years ago the U.S. spent $50 million to replace “inefficient cook stoves” that contribute to climate change and deforestation in developing countries. That check was made out to the Global Alliance for Clean Cook Stoves, which is run by the famously corrupt United Nations. Just last summer the administration invested $20 million in a green energy venture in Africa that’s supposed to create renewable energy in that part of the world.

Domestically, the government has also wasted huge sums on preposterous green projects. For instance, it blew $21 million to install thousands of solar panels at a Navy base that are supposed to save money by lowering utility bills. Instead it will take an astounding 447 years to benefit from the investment! Who can forget the boondoggle of them all; the northern California solar panel company (Solyndra) that folded after bilking taxpayers out of $535 million, an allocation pushed through by the White House.

In the last few years various government-sanctioned assessments have exposed the ills of global warming, but this is the grand poobah of federal reports. It’s published every four years by a group of scientists from a federal advisory panel (National Climate Assessment and Development Advisory Committee) that operates under the president’s National Science and Technology Council.

So it hardly comes as a surprise that its latest National Climate Assessment is essentially one big argument for the president’s various green initiatives, including the aggressive regulation of carbon dioxide and other gases that global warming alarmists say are ruining mother earth. The report, made public in the last few days, is so long it includes a warning that it’s a “very large file.” To avoid technical issues, different chapters as well as the introduction and executive summary can be viewed separately.

An address to the American people warns that climate change, once considered an issue for a distant future, has moved into the present. Things have worsened, with evidence of a changing climate “strengthened considerably” since that last National Climate Assessment report in 2009. Many more impacts of human-caused climate change have now been observed, the intro says, further warning that “climate change presents a major challenge for society.”

This includes the increasing threat to infrastructure, water supplies, crops and shorelines. In fact, environmental changes—mostly caused by humans—are causing drastic conditions such as disastrous flooding and dangerous rises in sea levels in some parts and ravaging droughts in others. This is having a huge impact on Americans’ health and livelihoods, especially in communities that already face economic challenges, the report says.

In the last few years a variety of government-funded studies have warned that global warming will make food and water dangerous, cause mental illness, cancer and threaten national security. In fact, under the Obama Administration, a consortium of scientists from several government agencies—including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the State Department and National Institute of Environmental Health Science—have confirmed that global warming is one of the “most visible environmental concerns of the 21st century.”

This clearly defeats the intended goal of saving mother earth from the evils of man-made pollutants that are contributing to the global warming crisis. The story involves California’s massive transformation in the way electricity is produced and distributed. By 2020 the Golden State plans to be a green zone with a clean-energy economy that drastically slashes greenhouse gas emissions to reduce the impact of climate change.

This is supposed to happen via a “renewable portfolio standard,” which will require utility companies to get a third of their electricity from renewable sources like solar and wind. But this overhaul comes with a hefty price—to the environment and the wallet—and a lengthy report released this week by a nonpartisan state oversight agency seems to indicate that perhaps it’s just a pipe dream.

California is trying to implement too many renewable energy policy initiatives at the same time without a full accounting of the consequences, according to the audit. This includes a groundbreaking cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, support for rapid expansion of rooftop solar systems and promotion of large, utility-scale solar thermal power plants in the desert.

“The state has not produced a comprehensive assessment of the total cost of implementing this group of policies, inhibiting consumers and businesses in their ability to plan for this new future,” the report says. “This sets the stage for a potential ratepayer revolt that could dampen support for environmental stewardship policies.”

In a statement announcing the report, the chairman of the state watchdog that conducted the probe, warned: “Without more careful calibration of these policies, Californians may wind up paying more than necessary for electricity and the state may unnecessarily degrade pristine habitat in its rush to implement its renewable energy goals.”

On a wider scale, this delivers a substantial blow to the Obama Administration’s green energy crusade, which has already cost American taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars for failed experiments. Remember the Solyndra boondoggle? The fly by night solar panel firm got $535 million from the government to promote green energy but instead folded, laying off more than 1,000 workers and stiffing U.S. taxpayers. President Obama had touted Solyndra as a prominent example of clean energy, saying during a visit to its northern California headquarters that “companies like Solyndra are leading the way toward a brighter and more prosperous future.”

The administration has also poured tens of millions of dollars into other ill-fated renewable energy projects that continue receiving big chunks of cash from the government. Last fall an investigative news report revealed that many of the nation’s so-called “green energy plants” actually infest the air with a “toxic brew of pollutants” while the administration promotes them as environmentally friendly generators of electricity and showers them with hundreds of millions of dollars.

Additionally, the administration has funded programs like a $30 million initiative to train the next generation of energy efficiency experts at dozens of universities around the country and $5 million to join an Arab-based organization dedicated to promoting renewable energy worldwide. The U.S. already gives similar international “renewable energy” initiatives, operated by the famously corrupt United Nations, billions of dollars.

Uncle Sam even doled out $9.9 million for the “green makeover” of a public housing facility in Washington State. President Obama justifies the expenditures by claiming that the green initiatives, not only help the environment, they create jobs. However, a scathing congressional report  has revealed that the failed projects have instead eliminated jobs and the process of distributing funds is rife with undue political influence.

That’s right; the scandal-plagued government agency responsible for providing national security intelligence to senior U.S. policymakers operated a special unit that focused on global warming. Known as the Center on Climate Change and National Security, it was an exclusive division led by “senior specialists.” It operated under a cloak of secrecy that rejected all public-records requests, despite President Obama’s promise to run a transparent government.

When the center was launched in 2009, the CIA said it would not address the science of climate change but rather the national security impact of phenomena such as desertification, rising sea levels, population shifts and heightened competition for natural resources. The unit was touted as an important tool that would bring together in a single place expertise on an important national security topic; the effect environmental factors can have on political, economic and social stability overseas.

Instead it was a big joke that accomplished nothing and wasted undisclosed amounts (it’s a national security secret) of taxpayer dollars. In fact, Americans may never know much about what the center actually did or how much cash it blew since it’s all “classified” to prevent compromising national security. At least that’s what the CIA told an intelligence historian affiliated with the National Security Archives last year in response to a records request.

However, we will be left with some of the great work the special unit approved for public disclosure. For instance, earlier this month it divulged in a special report that global warming presents a worldwide security risk caused mainly by “social and political stresses outside the United States.” This may seem inconsequential from a spy agency basking in the shame of a major sex scandal.

The startling report actually exposes the national security dangers of global warming. Climate change is accelerating at such a fast pace that it will put severe strains on U.S. military and intelligence agencies in the coming years, the CIA-sanctioned study found. The changes will trigger increasingly disruptive developments around the world as well.

“Scientific evidence indicates that the global climate is moving outside the bounds of past experience and can be expected to put new stresses on societies around the world, prompting examination of a variety of plausible scenarios through which climate change might pose or alter security risks for the United States,” according to a summary from the report. It goes on to offer an improved understanding of the links between climate and security as well as the ability to anticipate potential security risks arising from “climate phenomena.”

With the folding of this special CIA global warming unit, Americans and the U.S. government must learn to survive without the sensational climate change intelligence it uncovered.

This type of sensational information is probably not the sort  expected from the government agency responsible for providing national security intelligence to senior U.S. policymakers. But this is today’s Central Intelligence Agency, with a fallen chief who may have compromised national security during an extramarital affair and a new emphasis on global warming.

In fact, many Americans may not know that the CIA, created in 1947 by President Harry S. Truman, operates a special center dedicated to global warming. Judicial Watch wrote about it last fall because it operates under a cloak of secrecy that rejects all public-records requests. What we do know is was launched under President Obama in 2009, it’s known as the Center on Climate Change and National Security and it is considered an exclusive unit led by “senior specialists.”

As the agency suffers through a monstrous scandal this month, it comes out with a startling report exposing the national security dangers of global warming. Climate change is accelerating at such a fast pace that it will put severe strains on U.S. military and intelligence agencies in the coming years, the CIA-sanctioned study found. The changes will trigger increasingly disruptive developments around the world as well.

“Scientific evidence indicates that the global climate is moving outside the bounds of past experience and can be expected to put new stresses on societies around the world, prompting examination of a variety of plausible scenarios through which climate change might pose or alter security risks for the United States,” according to a summary from the report. It goes on to offer an improved understanding of the links between climate and security as well as the ability to anticipate potential security risks arising from “climate phenomena.”

Keeping with the CIA’s primary mission of gathering foreign intelligence, the report focuses on climate-related “social and political stresses outside the United States.” It outlines security risks that might “exceed the capacity of affected populations to cope and respond.” How exactly will this occur? Seemingly unrelated events exacerbated by climate change will cause an unpredictable crisis in water and energy supplies, food markets and public health systems.

Since Obama became president, a variety of taxpayer-funded studies have warned about the ills of global warming. Just last week researchers at a public university in Maryland revealed that the Washington D.C. area and surrounding government infrastructure will be virtually destroyed by global warming over the next century. This will occur as a result of long-term sea level rise caused by climate change, according to those particular researchers.

Previous to that the government warned that global warming will make food and water dangerous, cause mental illness, cancer and threaten national security. In fact, a consortium of Obama Administration scientists from several government agencies—including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the State Department and National Institute of Environmental Health Science—have confirmed that global warming is one of the “most visible environmental concerns of the 21st century.”

At the very least climate change will cause billions of dollars in damage to city and federal property in the District of Columbia, say researchers at the public institution, the University of Maryland, that disclosed the alarming news this week. This disaster will occur as a result of long-term sea level rise caused by global warming.

It gets worse, according to the esteemed academics that conducted the in-depth probe. “Potential for significant damage will be even greater in the event of extreme weather like Hurricane Sandy,” they reveal in a press release announcing their findings. Over the next 100 years, continuing sea level rise could cause damages of more than $24.6 billion to Washington’s commercial property, museums, and government agencies.

This is based on trends and predictions that suggest the nation’s capital is likely to face flooding and infrastructure damage caused by sea level rise linked to thermal expansion of the oceans and melting of global ice sheets caused by global warming. “Climate change not only results in increasing the sea level but also the annual rate and intensity of storms,” claims one of the university researchers.

To stop this tragedy from occurring, they recommend that the government get involved. “Decisions must be made in the near future by lawmakers or city planners on how to reduce the impact of and adapt to sea level rise,” they say. “Cost-effective methods to deal with sea level rise should be developed, and long-term solutions that extend well into this millennium are necessary.”

Exactly how this can be accomplished likely requires more taxpayer-funded research, so stay tuned. Under President Obama, the government has dedicated substantial resources to expose the ills of global warming and the doom it will bring if humans don’t adapt a “green” mentality. In fact, the Maryland study is simply the latest of many publicly-financed projects that aim to accomplish this.

In the last few years Uncle Sam has paid for a variety of studies warning that global warming will make food and water dangerous, cause mental illness, cancer and threaten national security. In fact, a consortium of Obama Administration scientists from several government agencies—including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the State Department and National Institute of Environmental Health Science—have confirmed that global warming is one of the “most visible environmental concerns of the 21st century.”

Last fall a separate government agency came out with an alarming report saying that global warming is much worse than previously imagined because the ocean actually masks the true rate of damage for periods as long as a decade. In this version, the sea is storing the heat that damages the earth, making it appear as if there is a sort of hiatus in global warming when there really isn’t.

Not surprisingly, the Obama Administration has determined that people from low socioeconomic backgrounds and those living in urban areas (if you read between the lines this means ethnic minorities) are more “susceptible” and “vulnerable” to diseases exacerbated by climate change. That can only mean one thing; taxpayer dollars will inevitably be allocated to further study this phenomenon.

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) scientist (Richard Lindzen), coined “global warming skeptic” by the feds, was never the less given the opportunity to present his findings at a recent government-funded “climate security” series that addressed the many ills of climate change. The event was sponsored by a U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) lab that conducts scientific research to help detect, repel, defeat or mitigate national security threats.

Not surprisingly Lindzen, an atmospheric physicist and professor of meteorology at MIT, was outnumbered by dozens of scientists that share the Obama Administration’s vision on global warming. Here is a perfect example of what Lindzen was up against; a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research who proclaimed that global warming is unequivocal and will compromise national security when island and coastal countries disappear or sink below sea level because of rising oceans.

Lindzen countered this, saying that there is little evidence that changes in climate are producing extreme weather events and that too much is being made of climate change by researchers seeking government funding. Their data and methods don’t support their claims, he assured, offering detailed scientific information to back his theory. He discounted the notion that climate change can hurt national security, pointing out that “historically there is little evidence of natural disasters leading to war….”

In the last few years a variety of government-funded studies have warned that global warming will make food and water dangerous, cause mental illness, cancer and threaten national security. In fact, under the Obama Administration, a consortium of scientists from several government agencies—including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the State Department and National Institute of Environmental Health Science—have confirmed that global warming is one of the “most visible environmental concerns of the 21st century.”

Just a few months ago, a group of bilingual and “binational” researchers from the U.S. and Mexico determined that global warming will threaten the water supply in a southern border region. Why is that? Because parts of Arizona and Mexico form the “front line of ongoing climate change” and that means “water vulnerability” caused by “climate variability and change.” Combined with vulnerability from urbanization, industrialization and agriculture intensification this will threaten the water supply.  

That’s nothing. Global warming is much worse than previously imagined because the ocean actually masks the true rate of damage for periods as long as a decade. At least that’s what a recent government study from the National Science Foundation (NSF) says. According to this logic the crisis is way more severe than what it appears because the sea is storing the heat that damages the earth, making it appear as if there is a sort of hiatus in global warming when there really isn’t. When this ocean-stored heat will show its evil face will probably be the subject of the next government-funded study