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

That means the government has so far, in a variety of separate assessments, determined that global warming will make food 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 21^st century.”

The food report came from a group of esteemed scientists from several public universities that determined global warming will provoke increased levels of food contamination from chemicals and “fungal pathogens” as well as diseases like cholera and shellfish poisoning. This will lead to the malnourishment of millions worldwide and most likely civil unrest, according to that particular batch of academics.

This week’s global warming alert du jour comes from another group of academics who say parts of Arizona and Mexico form the “front line of ongoing climate change.” That means “water vulnerability” caused by “climate variability and change.” That’s because global warming will cause severe precipitation decreases and temperature increases. Combined with vulnerability from urbanization, industrialization and agriculture intensification this will threaten the water supply.   

A team of bilingual and “binational” researchers from the University of Arizona and the Colegio de Sonora in Hermosillo, Sonora, Mexico reached this conclusion after researching the matter for three years. U.S. taxpayers funded the study via a grant from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Researchers worked closely with water managers, disaster relief planners and other decision-makers in Arizona and Sonora to study the vulnerability of the region’s water resources to climate variability and change.

This sort of alarmist report involving global warming has become par for the course under the Obama Administration. In one of its latest assessments, the government determined 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.

According to this logic, revealed last fall by the National Science Foundation (NSF), the crisis is way more severe than what it appears. That’s 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.

Here comes the best part. During Obama’s presidency American taxpayers have already doled out nearly $3 billion for this preposterous cause, according to a new congressional report posted this week by a think tank that publishes hard-to-find government documents of public policy interest.

The figures are tough to swallow for a country that’s $15.5 trillion in the red and counting. In fiscal year 2009 the administration got $323 million for the program—officially known as Global Climate Change Initiative—and the figure nearly tripled to $939 million in 2010. In 2011 it dropped slightly to $819 million and in 2012 it dipped a bit more to $773 million.

Do the math. That’s more than $2.8 billion to save the developing world from the presumed ills of global warming. That’s downright outrageous! But it’s part of Obama’s plan to categorize climate change as U.S. foreign assistance so that more money can go to the cause and “core” agencies—such as the Treasury and State Department— can participate. In fact, last month Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced a new State Department coalition dedicated to the cause.

In the administration’s own words, the goal is to make climate financing efficient, effective and innovative. This is essential, according to the White House, because global climate change will have a strong impact on development in coming decades. The absence of strong global action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will hinder future development. On the other hand, “smart climate policies” will result in a range of “economic and social benefits.”   

Via an official government website, the administration also claims that climate change is one of the century’s greatest challenges since it can compound pre-existing social stresses, including poverty, hunger, conflict, migration and the spread of disease. This threatens to diminish the “habitability of our planet,” according to the U.S. government. 

So there you go. Let’s pour more money into this dire cause while the nation suffers through a dire financial crisis. Here’s an example of where the money is going; adaptation programs that assist low-income countries in reducing their “vulnerability to climate change impacts” and help them build “climate resilience.” The “vulnerable” countries targeted are in Africa, Asia and Latin America.

]]> http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2012/03/billions-to-fight-global-warming-in-poor-countries/feed/ 2 http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2012/02/u-s-releases-climate-change-gender-fact-sheet/ http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2012/02/u-s-releases-climate-change-gender-fact-sheet/#comments Tue, 07 Feb 2012 16:27:29 +0000 Irene http://www.judicialwatch.org/?p=12369 Read the full post

Widely known as Occupy Wall Street, the movement has gained momentum with mass, often violent protests that have paralyzed cities across the nation. In New York more than 150 people were arrested and several police officers suffered injuries. In Oakland California police were forced to use riot gear and tear gas to disperse the huge, violent crowds and in Las Vegas nearly two dozen protesters were arrested.

Among the movement’s goals is to get major banks to stop preying on the poor and people of color, according to the organizer of a Massachusetts rally promoted as Take Back Boston. Protesters also demand that politicians stop giving tax breaks to the rich while slashing vital services families depend on. In short, they want to “rebuild” the American dream to make it more inclusive.

Leading the campaign is President Obama’s good friend, civil rights lawyer Van Jones, the highly-touted “Green Czar” who was booted amid controversy over his radical history. A Yale Law School grad, Jones became a communist after the 1992 Rodney King riots in Los Angeles and says he loathes capitalism because it exploits nonwhite minorities worldwide. Jones is a committed Marxist-Leninist-Maoist who became a revolutionary after meeting “young radical people of color” in jail and views police officers as the arch enemies of black people.

Jones’s proudest moments include publicly supporting convicted cop killer Mumia abu-Jamal, signing a petition suggesting the U.S. government had a hand in the 2001 terrorist attacks, accusing “white polluters” of “environmental racism” for steering poison into poor black communities and referring to Republicans in vulgar terms unbecoming of a presidential advisor.

How appropriate that he’s the self-appointed Occupy Wall Street principal and founder of a new community group (Rebuild the Dream) that’s capitalizing on the protests with its special brand, the “American Dream Movement.” The group’s website describes it as an unstoppable coalition of progressive organized workers, students, civil rights fighters, women’s rights champions, immigrant rights defenders and community activists, among others.  

“We are rallying Americans to stand up for our founding values, and make America, once again, a land where it is safe for everyday people to dream,” according to the group’s mission statement. “By standing up for dignity, equal opportunity and fair play, we are reclaiming what is best in our nations’ moral fabric, and creating a country truly grounded in liberty and justice for all.”

Jones is booking every media interview he can get to promote his new group, which is closely affiliated with other leftist nonprofits like Common Cause, Hip Hop Caucus, Move On and Code Pink as well as the influential Service Employees International Union (SEIU). During a segment on a major cable news show this week, he assured that his movement would dwarf the 2010 “earthquake” created by the Tea Party’s appearance on the political scene.  

“You haven’t seen anything yet,” Jones confidently said on national television, further warning: “Wait until the 99 percent movement moves over into politics.” The protests will evolve from anger to answers, from pointing out the problem to pointing out the solution, Jones explained. The movement is also in the process of recruiting 2,000 candidates to run for office under the 99 percent banner, he said.