Last week, we told you about the Obama administration’s better-late-than-never effort to defend Europe against Russian aggression with the announcement of a $3.4 billion cash infusion request from Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter. Apparently it dawned on Obama that peace isn’t yet “breaking out all over the world,” especially in rogue states, terrorist organizations or would-be regional hegemons — which was already painfully obvious to anyone else capable of observing the world as it actually exists.

This week, the news is even better, and by “even better” of course we mean much, much worse. Barack Obama’s top Pentagon brass has ordered all branches of the military to incorporate “climate change” into every aspect of their missions, from basic lab research to weapons testing to putting boots on the ground in combat. And we thought the insanity in the Department of Defense couldn’t get any worse.

A new directive, “Climate Change Adaptation and Resilience,” decrees that U.S. defense forces must defeat the enemy threat based on “actionable science.” And since “global warm— … er, "climate change” is the biggest existential threat to the U.S. — never mind terrorism, a Middle East that’s on fire, a nuclear-ambitious Iran, a space- and nuke-capable North Korea, and global political and military upheaval — it makes sense that Obama would interweave combating that awesome threat into everything we do to defend the nation. Such irony would be hilarious but for the fact the fate of the free world is tied to it.

But this directive isn’t without its snags — namely, the effects that actionable science will have on every aspect of warfighting. The new layers-upon-layers of “green” bureaucracy will make the term “massive cost overruns” seem passé by comparison. (See, for example, Obama’s “Great Green Fleet.”)

One other matter — that an unimpeachable foundation for the “climate change” conjecture does not exist — also seems to have been overlooked in the hunt for all that “actionable science.” In fact, researchers at the University of Colorado combing through decades of weather reports found no increase in storm frequencies worldwide, and even the über-ecofascist United Nations has stated that sufficient evidence to confirm increased frequencies in droughts and floods simply does not exist. But never mind: No cost is too high to combat climate change — even, evidently, the cost of not combating real threats.

Unfortunately, we’ve seen harbingers of this perversion of the U.S. military mission already. For example, as former CIA Deputy Director Mike Morell recently explained to Charlie Rose on PBS, “We didn’t go after oil wells ISIS controls because we didn’t want to do environmental damage.” Sure: Why would we go after a great source of Islamic State funding and power? After all, the planet hangs in the balance!

No, we’re told, all this conventional thinking about “defending the nation” is wrongheaded, and we’ll eventually see the light. The bottom line, they say, is that we should all feel safer now that the real threat has been identified. Of course, we’re sure that stalwart climate-change-conscious states like Russia and China will join us in being good stewards of the earth and “warriors” against climate change — right after they finish the more pressing matter of expanding their empires.