Hmmm, let's research the characters in that "article"...
Author : Peter Lehner : Executive Director at NDRC - NRDC is the nation's most effective environmental action organization. (according to themselves of course...) Nice article. Keep trying boys!
Brig. Gen. Steven Anderson -- woops author - the dude is RETIRED! he ain't in the armed forces. he's moved onto greener pastures... ya know green, dinero, moolah...
Lt. Gen. John Castellaw -- ding ding. author is 0 for 2 - this dude is retired as well. this guy seems genuine and will probably back out of this cl*sterf*ck once he realizes the true nature of it.
Vice Adm. Dennis McGinn -- hell yeah... 0 for 3. retired as well and also spewing the global warming crap since at least 2007. this guy is a clueless hack.
Lt. Gen. Norman Seip -- BOO-YAH 0 for 4. Retired since 2009.
Give me a break. The headline is an abject lie. These guys ARE NOT US military. They WERE US military. Would the new york times post a headline stating "US MILITARY WANTS TO NUKE IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN" - if some retired private stated that? It is a garbage article, written by a garbage lobbyist, about some garbage guys scrounging for some bucks in their post-career career.
This is how the entire global warming hoax has been worked over. Everything bent in every little direction. Total media blitz by the lobbyists. Objective people are portrayed as skeptics and simpletons. Alarmists are portrayed as concerned and thoughtful. You cannot have an intelligent debate, because that would absolutely crush the discussion. Graphs would be shown that undermine the ENTIRE PREMISE.
Every article is basically the same. Talk about something that can be universally agreed as unfortunate or bothersome - some soldier dying, a baby animal suffering, etc. Then make an assertion that cannot be argued as untrue - "The soldiers died because the army needed OIL." "The polar bear cub looked scared." Then make some conjecture without any proof. i.e. "For the military, a shift to clean energy makes a lot of sense. It helps keep troops out of harm’s way, boosts operational efficiency, and provides long-term energy savings." And then lastly, forget the whole entire "unfortunate or bothersome" event - make a push for your true and only agenda by callously linking two things which ABSOLUTELY have no link whatsoever... "The faster we build a clean, renewable, homegrown energy supply, the faster we can bring our troops"
This kind of promotional crap is truly sickening. You take junk science, wrap it in junk politics, throw in some junk marketing and voila... the government is funding Solyndra and waving the American flag... and worst of all - there are a bunch of chicken littles and greenie lemmings running around repeating this garbage without ever questioning even some of the most outrageous claims.