Home » Documents » Document: Pentagon’s Climate Change Adaptation Roadmap


Document: Pentagon’s Climate Change Adaptation Roadmap

Soliders testing network equipment at Ft. Bliss, Texas in 2014. US Army Photo

Soliders testing network equipment at Ft. Bliss, Texas in 2014. US Army Photo

The following is the 2014 Department of Defense Climate Change Adaptation Roadmap, issued on Oct., 13 2014.

  • Eric Arllen

    As the DoD mindlessly follows the “yellow brick road” to serve the chimera of global warming or climate disruption or whatever name the hoax takes this week, all that will be found in the end will be a sleazy politician hiding behind a curtain telling any who will listen to keep believing the “Great Oz” as he continues to pull on puppet strings.

    Then we’ll all know what a magnificent global fraud climate change has been. But we’ll then have to face the daunting tall of trying to gett back our long lost liberty and national treasure.

    • john dierking

      I am really ambivalent to your comments. Consider that climate change is a practical consideration on the battlefield… weather is a definite factor. We should be able to fight in ” every clime and every place” with the most effective equipment and the best equipment available, I agree that the global warming doctrine is a hoax in what the true believers want to do about it, and want US to pay fro their grandiose schemes, but give our fighting men everything they need to win wars.

      • Eric Arllen

        All you say is true. But what you may not know is being combat ready in all climactic environments is nothing new. Actually, it is a century’s long concern for all branches of the U.S. military. Recall George Washington’s brutal winter at Valley Forge, uniforms and rations during the Civil War, dealing with the devastating 1944 Typhoon, bad weather potentially impacting the D-Day Invasion and on and on. Climate and weather awareness and preparedness is alive and well today. This “paper” is purely AGwhatever nonsense.

        You are absolutely correct in observing AGwhatever is a hoax employed with the aim of accomplishing bad things to our nation that never could be enacted without a crisis. Crises give politicians the opportunity to warp the future. And if no real crisis exists truly nefarious politicians will manufacture one no matter the cost..

        • john dierking

          Eric, don’t be condescending. It ill-befits you when you really do not know who you are talking to. We do agree in principle though. Are you old enough to remember the initial fighting in Korea ? and I did go to some schools and I do read some. I only did 30 years in, starting in 1967. Do you remember the Marine cold weather training Center in Bridgeport? How about the Army’s Northern Warfare training Center at Ft Greeley? Desert training in 29 Palms and Ft Irwin? Jungle training in Panama and the PI? Yeah, I know a little about military operations in harsh environments. Do you remember it being a mission of the USMC to operate in the Northern Front if USSR attacked Europe? I am still linked in with my favorite old unit to keep up on present doctrine, as well as reading a couple of professional publications Are you trying to just impress everyone who might read with your vast knowledge? Or just think that you are better than anyone else? Mind your manners. I think I have earned the right to be a curmudgeon.

          • Eric Arllen

            I don’t mean to condescend. My point is the military has for a long time, does now and is quite likely for long into the future to take weather and climate into consideration as it plans and executes. There is no need for this particular document other than to quite wrongly attempt to lend the credibility of the military to this ongoing hoax.

            Permission granted to keep on curmudgeoning to your heart’s content if you erroneously think you need my assent. .

          • john dierking

            First, weather as a consideration: plain fact, hardly worth discussing, right? We are in agreement. Second,The purpose of this article? Mostly Public Relations and demonstration of the military being PC, I think. Hoax? Let me see, I do believe climate can change. I can accept that. Where the Climate Change dictators and I split, is about what is to be done about it, how much money the American people need spend to “save the world,” and facts about how effective the proposed measures are going to be. Change Hoaxers have demonstrated intellectual and academic dishonesty, bullying, and rather poor science to further their goals. Yes. my curmudgeonness does come out sometimes. It is easier when people seem able to look past that, and are willing to look at what I am saying.

          • Eric Arllen

            We’re good.

    • old guy

      Brilliantly stated!

  • Gary Hart

    Whomever is perpetuating this grand “hoax” must be a genius to have convinced not only an overwhelming majority of the scientific community but also our senior military commanders and their civilian national security counterparts of the seriousness of this threat. Perhaps the deniers can sit at the waters edge, like King Canute, and shovel back the rising tide.

    • Sandy

      all the politically correct lemmings will follow this hoax, as you do…NSC counter parts – all Obuggerites…Military commanders…almost all Obuggerites….see a pattern? Try doing some research…www.accuweather.com Try leaving your basement once in a while…there is no global warming/change/disruption…all the socialist redistribution of wealth PLAN…GEE, Arctic and Antarctic ice sheets the greatest in decades – Great Lakes near completely frozen for the first time in decades..Al Gore is making millions from you hammerheads…

      • CommodoreBlake

        What kind of racist, luddite, FAUX NEW watching blowhard posted this rant by “Sandy” on the MOAA website? Unacceptable, unprofessional, profoundly racist, and obviously penned by a pale and male, overweight, right wing Repugnant (sorry, Republican). Out.

        • Sandy

          racist? how, blowhard?…wow, what a tremendously intellectually stimulating non-arguement from someone who obviously voted for the community organizer who was NOT a Constitutional lawyer…., twice..and someone who obviously is a mind-reader and has a magic mirror….time to grow up for you and also learn to make a cogent argument rather than rant, but then again, that’s all you socialists know how to do…”hope and change, yes we can”. So, how are those doubled premiums and tripled deductibles working for your “free health care”…it’ll be even more expensive with this non-issue of global warming, er uh, climate change, er uh, climate disruption, er uh….what?……….Commodore…riiiiight.

          • The_Hitter

            You made a lot of assumptions about CommodoreBlake based on a four line post. Cut back on the caffeine, Sandy, or take your own advice: “time to grow up for you and also learn to make a cogent argument rather than rant”.

          • Sandy

            shouldn’t change your posting name…or can’t you handle the debate? Your “pseudo name” can’t…..

          • The_Hitter

            As opposed to “Sandy”?
            Let’s review, Sandy. You started with a name calling frothing at the mouth screed accusing the government, the military and just about anyone who disagrees with you as being a part of a vast conspiracy. Then, when CommodoreBlake responded you replied with a rant making all sorts of assumptions. For the record, I never voted for Barak Obama and never would, although I’m sure you won’t believe it. And, as this is still an open issue, anyone who states with absolute certainty one way or the other is a fool. I’m sure you’ll resort to name calling, let me guess, Rush Limbaugh’s term for anyone who disagrees with with him, a “low information voter”. Guess what, Sandy? I have an open mind and don’t take my marching orders from Al Gore or Rush Limbaugh. Can you say the same? I doubt it; your mind is closed. And for the record, civil discourse beats ranting any time. Try it. I bet you can’t.

          • Sandy

            okay, so are you Commodore Blake, Hitter, or Gary Hart – got it…..all three….another paid HUFFPO Troll….and no, I DON’T believe you never voted for Obugger…twice…so, live in your socialist shame – and from now on, just call your self the “low info voter”…c’mon, pajama-boy…stop sucking on your pillow while looking at pictures of Hillary and lighting your candles on your Obugger altar….it’s time for you to admit that Obugger is doing what he said he would do – “fundamentally change America” into a socialist country. Let’s also remember, GaryHart/CommodoreBlake/Hitter, you went off the rails on the name calling…why are you letting socialists use you?…..Al Gore is a bumbling idiot being used by the socialists at the UN – every socialist seems to get that good ole’ Nobel Prize – Yasser Arafat, Jimmy Carter, Gore, and B. Obugger…interesting….

        • 02144pomroy

          Sounds like it was you according to your own description.

        • john dierking

          dictatorship of the loudest in action.

    • old guy

      I call you part of the Galileo problem. “Let’s stick with the crowd, then we can look smart” This garbage won’t go away while theres a buck to be made, or a real President, that sees that all this is a set of money making schemes by the likes of Gore and the grant grabbers, and a power play by the UN to control the world.

    • 02144pomroy

      For every one “scientist” who supports this great lie, I can find 5 scientists who think its garbage. You know darn well they were caught lying about this stuff. Environmentalism is the new home for commies and supporters of the New World Order. Why can’t you all just be happy to run and ruin your own hapless lives and leave the rest of the world alone.
      These jokers running the Pentagon are just doing what they are told. No real leaders anymore. If the president told them that moon men were our greatest threat they would be drawing up plans to adapt to the moon man threat. What a joke the once great United States has become. Most of it is due to the liberal indoctrination carried out in the schools. God help us. Our time left as a nation is short.

    • john dierking

      BS! how about the academic dishonesty of the climate change proponents? They are bullies, too. How did they convince people? Not very well, mostly the media and the ones that believe what they are told to believe

  • JR

    I wish people would separate the discussion of climate change from the politically charged assumptions associated with global warming being caused by human activities. Climate change as well as medium and long term weather patterns have always occurred on this planet and often can have strategic consequences. If sea levels are indeed rising, or for that matter are falling, it matters because of the propensity of human beings through out the world to live and conduct commerce in regions close to sea coasts and waterways leading to the sea. Medium to longer term climate changes will have consequences for human life. infrastructure and economies regardless of whether the cause is natural, man-made or a combination of both. They always have and always will. Politics aside, I am happy the military is taking this into consideration in its planning.

    • john dierking

      The military considerations are practical, and meant to win wars. I can even accept that the climate is changing, It has done it before. Manmade? all the bets are not in, are they? My objection is to the grandiose plans that ” must be done , RIGHT NOW!” which may or may not be effective in ameliorating change, but WE MUST pay for them, RIGHT NOW! It generates my distrust. I propose that humanity, collectively and locally be allowed to adapt to conditions as they change, It is what the human race has done best for a very long time.

  • The_Hitter

    No matter how you feel about the subject, “hoax” is a very strong word. Accusing someone in the scientific community of perpetrating a hoax is like accusing a journalist of plagiarism or fabricating a story. Besides, do you believe that EVERYONE in the scientific community is falsifying their data? That’s about as likely as faking the moon landing or the Vietnam War.

    • Eric Arllen

      It comes down to one of two things. Either the perps of AGW or AGC or whatever term of art you prefer have no idea what they are talking about – and since the models which form the sum basis for all the alarm can’t replicate past known climate whole raising future alarm when feed corresponding past data junks the hypothesis (there are many other problems, but this is the most obvious.) – the perps may be ignorant. Certainly, they are scientifically wrong. And if ignorant of wrong they are worthy of being dismissed.

      The other option is the perps are knowingly advancing a lie for some reason. The motivation may be relatively innocent within the confines of their warped minds. But it is still a lie.

      So, either the perps are ignorant or they are lying. Which do you prefer?

      Either way AGwhatever is a hoax.

      • john dierking

        computer models: the technolgy and programs in no way reach reality. GIGO

      • The_Hitter

        True, Eric, ignorance or overreacting are ways to look at it, maybe even an agenda (political or otherwise), but again, I object to the term “hoax”, as it suggests a conspiracy or a deliberate fraud. I can’t imagine any respectable scientist doing that no matter how strongly they feel about it, pro or con. I could be wrong.

        • Eric Arllen

          You are more trusting of these perps than I am. Good luck with that. .

          • The_Hitter

            I wouldn’t say “trust”, but I’ll look at what they have to say on both sides.

    • BlueMax372

      The only people within the “scientific community” who can speak to this subject with any degree of relevance are seasoned climatologists, all of whom are either “skeptics” or anti-AGW ever since they successfully passed high school sophomore earth science! AGW is as massive a HOAX as 0v0mit’s “presidency.”

    • john dierking

      yep, I do that! your perspective is reasoned and politely stated (which counts for a lot with me). The point is that consensus has NOT been reached, the argument is NOT settled and the True Believers are really trying to suppress any disagreement.

      • The_Hitter

        Thank you for that, I prefer rational discussion, too. Personally, I’ve adopted a wait and see attitude, but there’s been some weird weather lately. Floods where there weren’t floods, snowstorms where they weren’t before. For example, I live in Massachusetts and we had a tornado come through a few weeks ago. What’s causing it? The vote is still out.

        • john dierking

          Hitter: That climate can change, I can accept. What I cannot just blindly accept is that it is “clearly manmade” and then what mankind must do to ameliorate the change. America to go back to a third world standard of living is Unacceptable. That America has to pay for grandiose plans and projects that may not even have any effect? Needs way more work before I will want them. I support local adaptation, which is something that humans have been able to do for millennia successfully. People live in the Arctic, the jungles, the high mountains. Why cannot we work on extreme change in weather? Floods, blizzards, hurricanes, tornadoes can all be dealt with, without bankrupting the world.

          • The_Hitter

            I agree.

  • Cl1ffClav3n

    The diversion of food resources to biofuels production has resulted in an enduring 40% increase in the cost of food, the green-grabbing of millions of acres of land in the world’s poorest nations, the deforestation of primeval carbon-sink forest and peat lands, increased stress on limited water and mineral resources, and the increased emissions of CO2 and particulates that increase human mortality rates. It is the immediate harmful effects of bad climate change policies, not climate change itself, that is eroding international security and causing such violent events as the bread riots in Egypt which became the revolution that ousted Mubarak. The US military, principal proponent of biofuels, is one of the leading culprits.

    • Bhess

      Making fuel from food crops is morally repugnant.

      • john dierking

        Bravo Sierra! what we as a nation is a consideration of ALL sources of energy, even the ones someone objects to. Use them ALL and let the market sort it out. Being narrow minded is just not in our best interests. Statements like your are morally and ethically repugnant.

    • john dierking

      Cl1ff, we now live in a nation under dictatorship of the Loudest (as in eco0frewaks) and rule by bureaucracies ( EPA, DOE, BLM, Dept of Agriculture,and such)

  • Cl1ffClav3n

    BTW, according to the 2013 IPCC AR5 full report that likely no politician and certainly none of the climate alarmists ghostwriting for Hagel and the US military at the Pentagon have actually read, there has been a genuine hiatus in global warming since 1998, all the CO2-based climate models have inexplicably failed in their predictions, droughts have not increased, severe weather and cyclonic storms have not increased, the 20th century had more moderate weather than the five preceding centuries, disease is decreasing, plant growth and food crop yields are increasing, cold weather deaths continue to vastly outnumber warm weather deaths, there is little evidence and no consensus of opinion that there will be any dramatic or irreversible climate event this century, ice and glacier masses are stable at global scales, sea level rise is decelerating not accelerating, and the net benefits of any global warming will outweigh the net costs for about 2 deg C of more global warming.

    Meanwhile, this administration sees climate change as the only existential threat, while downplaying ebola, beheadings and other terrorist attacks on US soil, unsecured borders, ISIS, a nuclear Iran, growing energy poverty from subsidized solar and wind, the lowest labor force participation rate in US history, the highest food stamp participation rate in US history, IRS targeting, a race-baiting and gun-running DOJ, epic GSA and Secret Service scandal and incompetence, and the insolvency of a Federal Government propped up only with the Fed’s blank checks.

    • john dierking

      Cl1ff, add to your list of considerations( not being considered this week) issues of an aggressive Russia, an aggressive China, and illegal immigration being “forgiven” to the numbers in the millions. Military( Navy) being taught ” white privilege” as being condemned, and women in the military as a politically correct doctrine.

  • old guy

    As long as we elect BRAMICIDAL, SOLIPSISTIC presidents, Imperial Congressmen, and promote “SOCIAL” Generals and Admirals, we will be beset by garbage like DD1000, LCS, 45,000 ton amphibious ships without well decks, $28.00/gallon ship fuel, $120 m/ 23 passenger airplanes (V22), and the reduction of our ONCE GREAT country to “ME TOO” status.

    • 02144pomroy

      The Generals and Admirals etc., are nothing but politicians who wear a uniform.

    • john dierking

      od guy, I am ambivalent about your comments. We are in agreement about politicians and flag officers who are not warfighters. Don’t even get me started on the LCS. As far as the V22 goes, yes, it is expensive. The question is whether it is really superior to helicopters. Maybe it is, maybe the newer helos will be better

      • old guy

        V-22 is a turkey. In other USNI notes I have explained why I fought it for 20 years. Just for starters, would you carry your groceries home with your arms outstretched? This results in Huge moments caused by the engine weight. It also requires a 40′ cross shaft for one-engine operation. If the engines were mounted to the fuselage the moment problem would be solved and the shaft between the engines would be 6′ long. That is why our President turned it down as his replacement helo.

        • Sandy

          so, would you still have props vice small encase “fans” like the old NASA planes if the engines are on the fuselage?

          • old guy

            Yes, I do. Ducted fans, (which I strongly advocate for compound helicopter forward propulsion) do not meet the large volume/low velocity flow needed for an efficient helicopter lift mode.

          • Sandy

            how about the new Sikorsky counter-rotating prop with turbo prop aft?

          • old guy

            That is exactly what I advocated when I was “inside”. Frank Piasecki long advocated the same. I had a design that augmented the Huey Cobra by reducing its rotor diameter (and tip speed), added a ducted combination forward thruster/ torque compensator and resulted in a vehicle with a 10% increase in payload and a top speed of 290 kts. Not bad, heh?

          • Sandy

            cool…I’m a retired frogman by trade, but have always been an aviation geek wannabe. What did you think of the old NASA C-124 (I think that was the designation – looked like a mini C-130 with four props) for lift capability – was it worth pursuing, or was the technology not there yet?

  • old guy

    Repeat after me.,” CO2 is NOT a pollutant. The very sight discrepancy in CO2 to O2 conversion is due to the cutting of millions of acres of “converters” that is TREES’. Anthropogenic climate change is a money making hoax promoted by bitter USA haters, like Gore. I recommend the work of the NIPCC group for those who defy Galileo haters and still have an open mind.