Being a layman in these financial matters, I took to google and checked to get a comparison to that sum of 1 864 million dollars. What else is being done in the US with similar amounts?

It’s certainly not being used to re-write archaic, and poorly-written applications which manipulate the station temps. Apparently some of it is going towards running RealClimate.org, since at least one NASA employee maintains it during work hours. So some of it is directly used for propaganda and to stifle dissent.

From this page ( http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104772.html ) I found a “Summary of Federal Government Expenditure” for the fiscal year 2006.

I tried to find some number from this government statistic for fiscal year 2006 that would match the 2008 amount spent on climate science. One number (there were many options) was the amount that the state of New Hampshire spends on grants: 1 743 million dollars. And that is for GRANTS only. This state of New Hampshire has a population of 1,3 million approximately (estimate for 2008).

So, the amount spent on climate science for 2008 roughly equals the 2006 amount New Hampshire spent on grants. Total expenditure for said year for the state is 8 875 million dollars.

It does kind of put Joanne Nova’s “shocking” figures into perspective, doesn’t it?

“Fed Refuses to Disclose Recipients of $2 Trillion”
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=apx7XNLnZZlc

“A Few Trillion Missing from Pentagon”

“Financial bailout’s cost to U.S. could total almost $24 trillion”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32010841/ns/business-us_business

“What Does A Trillion Dollars Look Like?”

So, I guess things “could” be worse and even without the climate “science” funding…

Now where is the Govt sponorsed study quantifying the economic saving from the fact that without this 100 part per million increase in CO2 we would need 12 percent more water just to grow the current amount of food we produce.

The agenda is proven by the fact that the govt only studies “possible” catostrophic negative consequences, and does not study observable positive
effects. The agenda is proven by attempts to silence decent. The agenda is proven by refusal to release data and methods of how “scientific” studies reached their conclusion, rendering these studies incapable of being reproduced.

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/40867912.html

“While serving as Director of Scripps, Revelle and one of his researchers wrote the first modern scientific paper that linked carbon dioxide released into the air from the burning of fossil fuels and the greenhouse effect and the warming of temperatures. This triggered an avalanche of research that eventually became the impetus behind the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the entire global warming movement.”

Then a twist.

“In 1988 Roger Revelle was having major second thoughts about whether carbon dioxide was a significant greenhouse gas. He wrote letters to two Congressmen about it. And in 1991 he co-authored a report for the new science magazine Cosmos in which he expressed his strong doubts about global warming and urged more research before any remedial action was taken.

At that point Mr. Gore pronounced Revelle as senile and refused to debate global warming. He continues to refuse to debate today. Many offers of 10s of thousands of dollars have been made such a debate. Today Gore sequestered the media at this event and set forth rules, no questions, no interviews. ”

Alas this turned into a court case with Singer who coauthored with Revelle ,

The Revelle/gore story,

http://www.urban-renaissance.org/urbanren/revelle-gorestory.pdf

Al gore is a BIG part of this ridiculous science mess.

“Skeptics about global warming are often painted as hirelings of the oil and automotive industries. Such claims irritate me. I have never earned a nickel as a consequence of my skepticism. Indeed, I have lost hundreds of thousands of dollars by it. First, you have to understand how a large research university operates. The professors are expected to obtain research grants, and in the atmospheric sciences these grants come mostly from government agencies.
In the atmospheric sciences it is difficult to get grants unless you can somehow tie your work to global warming, that is to say, to scare science. Because of my reputation, I immodestly believe that I could have jumped onto the global warming bandwagon. But I refused to do so because I would have found this repugnant.
At some universities, professors get only a fraction of their salary from the university, the rest coming from contracts and grants. Research associates and research professors often must scrounge for 100% of their salaries.
Professors not only directly profit from their research grants (summer salaries), they also indirectly profit. If Professor X has grants amounting to millions of dollars, this gives him leverage. He wants more money so he threatens to leave and take his bags of money with him if he doesn’t get a whopping raise. Or he plays one university off against another. He gets an offer from another university in order to pressure his present university to increase his salary. I have seen this done many times. The system of federal grants, which hardly existed before (World War II), has created a professoriate with greater allegiance to government agencies than to their universities.”

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/aprilholladay/2006-08-07-global-warming-truth_x.htm

And here we have a good example of grantsmanship in the making, from that major source of global warming alarmism, “ScienceDaily”:

Federal Funding Gap Cited For Research On Human Health Impacts Due To Climate Change

“ScienceDaily (Mar. 26, 2009) — Climate change will seriously impact public health, but the United States has yet to allocate adequate research funding to understand and prepare for these impacts, according to a report published in Environmental Health Perspectives, the journal of the U.S. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.

The report suggests that the current knowledge gap regarding climate change and public health is putting multitudes at risk and calls for a major expansion of research to tackle this problem.”

Yeah, right…

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090326150554.htm

LOL – Even though rational thinkers consider the global scare essentially dead, the stale corpse of AGW will still be trotted around like a rerun of Weekend at Bernies –

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weekend_at_Bernie's

“In February 2007, Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski asked the president of Oregon State University to stop George Taylor from calling himself the state climatologist because of Taylor’s skeptical stance on global warming.”

At what point will Kulongoski apologize for this?

http://blog.oregonlive.com/pdxgreen/2008/02/controversial_state_climatolog.html

Jul 24, 2009
Why We Disagree About Climate Change: Understanding Controversy, Inaction and Opportunity

Book review by Joseph Bast

Having participated in the national and international debate over climate change for more than 15 years, I eagerly bought and read this book in the hope that it would examine the ideas and motives of both sides in the global warming debate. But that is not what this book is about.

The author, Mike Hulme, is a professor of climate change at the University of East Anglia, in the UK. He helped write the influential reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and many other government agencies that are commonly cited by alarmists in the debate. He has been one of the most prominent scientists declaring that “the debate is over” and that man-made global warming will be a catastrophe.

In this book, Hulme comes clean about the uncertain state of scientific knowledge about global warming, something alarmists almost never admit in public. For example, he writes, “the three questions examined above – What is causing climate change? By how much is warming likely to accelerate? What level of warming is dangerous? – represent just three of a number of contested or uncertain areas of knowledge about climate change.” (p. 75)

Later he admits, “Uncertainty pervades scientific predictions about the future performance of global and regional climates. And uncertainties multiply when considering all the consequences that might follow from such changes in climate.” (p. 83) On the subject of the IPCC’s credibility, he admits it is “governed by a Bureau consisting of selected governmental representatives, thus ensuring that the Panel’s work was clearly seen to be serving the needs of government and policy. The Panel was not to be a self-governing body of independent scientists.” (p. 95)

All this is exactly what global warming “skeptics” have been saying for years. It is utterly damning to the alarmists’ case to read these words in a book by one of their most prominent scientists.

How does Hulme justify hiding these truths from the general public? He calls climate change “a classic example of … `post-normal science,’” and quoting Silvio Funtowicz and Jerry Ravetz, defines this as “the application of science to public issues where `facts are uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high and decisions urgent.’” Issues that are put into the category of “post-normal science” are no longer subject to the cardinal requirements of true science: skepticism, universalism, communalism, and disinterestedness.

In “post-normal science,” consensus substitutes for true science. Political processes run by government bureaucracies, like the IPCC, are created to determine the views of a majority of carefully selected scientists. Any questioning of their statements and claims is dismissed as coming from the “fringe” of the scientific community. From this reasoning comes the claims of James Hansen, Al Gore, and many other alarmists that “the debate is over” and there is “virtually unanimous consensus” about the causes and consequences of global warming, even though according to the rules of true science, and scientists like Mike Hulme, the debate is definitely not over and there is no consensus.

Having freed himself from the restraints of true science, Hulme can indulge his political biases. In another amazing admission, he says his views on global warming are inseparable from his politics–he’s a self-described socialist. He writes, “The idea of climate change should be seen as an intellectual resource around which our collective and personal identities and projects can form and take shape. We need to ask not what we can do for climate change, but to ask what climate change can do for us.” (p. 326)

According to Hulme, climate change can do a lot: “Because the idea of climate change is so plastic, it can be deployed across many of our human projects and can serve many of our psychological, ethical, and spiritual needs.”

In other words, socialists like Hulme can frame the global warming issue to achieve unrelated goals such as sustainable development, income redistribution, population control, social justice, and many other items on the liberal/socialist wishlist.

Like the notorious Stephen Schneider, who once said, “We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts one might have. … Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest,” Hulme writes, “We will continue to create and tell new stories about climate change and mobilise them in support of our projects.”

These “myths,” he writes, “transcend the scientific categories of `true’ and `false’.” He suggests that his fellow global warming alarmists promote four myths, which he labels Lamenting Eden, Presaging Apocalypse, Constructing Babel, and Celebrating Jubilee.

It is troubling to read a prominent scientist who has so clearly lost sight of his cardinal duty–to be skeptical of all theories and always open to new data. It is particularly troubling when this scientist endorses lying to advance his personal political agenda. See review here.

From icecap.us

“Jeff Alberts (22:30:15) :

“Carbon Trading. Making money out of thin air.”

Best T-Shirt slogan ever”

I have another:

CO2: Feed the plants: Feed the People

This site does have a large following, and would be the perfect place to collect the voices of all the scientists who have been gagged by the government and peer review journals.

“Carbon Trading. Making money out of thin air.”

Best T-Shirt slogan ever

Enron was once big and funded and started the mess. They paid off James Hansen

GE wind owns the remnants of Enron wind and Warren Buffett owns the gas pipeline from Enron we once knew as Internorth.
Buffet is big OIL. liberal and tight with the agenda.