House votes to defund IPCC

From Climate Science Watch , their take on the issue, though a bit political, shows how it is viewed:

Just before 2 a.m. on February 19, the war on climate science showed its grip on the U.S. House of Representatives as it voted to eliminate U.S. funding for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The Republican majority, on a mostly party-line vote of 244-179, went on record as essentially saying that it no longer wishes to have the IPCC prepare its comprehensive international climate science assessments. Transcript of floor debate follows.

The amendment was sponsored by second-term Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-Missouri), who obviously knows nothing about climate science or the IPCC, and I expect could care less. His talking points were clearly provided by some denial machine operative and Mr. Leutkemeyer simply followed the script. Leading off with a reference to the stolen climate scientists emails (‘climategate’), he said:

Luetkemeyer: Scientists manipulated climate data, suppressed legitimate arguments in peer-reviewed journals, and researchers were asked to destroy emails, so that a small number of climate alarmists could continue to advance their environmental agenda.

Since then, more than 700 acclaimed international scientists have challenged the claims made by the IPCC, in this comprehensive 740-page report. These 700 scientists represent some of the most respected institutions at home and around the world, including the U.S. Departments of Energy and Defense, U.S. Air Force and Navy, and even the Environmental Protection Agency.

For example, famed Princeton University physicist Dr. Robert Austin, who has published 170 scientific papers and was elected a member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. Dr. Austin told a congressional committee that, unfortunately, climate has become a political science. It is tragic the some perhaps well-meaning but politically motivated scientists who should know better have whipped up a global frenzy about a phenomenon which is statistically questionable at best.

Mr. Chairman, if the families in my district have been able to tighten their belts, surely the federal government can do the same and stop funding an organization that is fraught with waste and abuse. My amendment simply says that no funds in this bill can go to the IPCC. This would save taxpayers millions of dollars this year and millions of dollars in years to come. In fact, the President has requested an additional $13 million in his fiscal 2012 budget request.

My constituents should not have to continue to foot the bill for an organization to keep producing corrupt findings that can be used as justification to impose a massive new energy tax on every American.

That is now the prevailing viewpoint of the majority party in the U.S. House of Representatives.

more here

=========================================================

This comes on the heels of defunding some EPA programs and voting to take control of GHG regulations away from the EPA.

House votes to block EPA’s global warming power

(AP)

The Republican-controlled House has voted to block the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gases that scientists say cause global warming.

The 249-177 vote added the regulation ban to a sweeping spending bill that would fund the government through Sept. 30. The restriction is opposed by the Obama administration, which is using its regulatory powers to curb greenhouse gases after global warming legislation collapsed last year. The administration also says the ban would cost thousands of construction jobs.

full story here

==========================================================

About these ads
This entry was posted in Politics, Science and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

150 Responses to House votes to defund IPCC

  1. Wijnand says:

    God bless America!!!!!

  2. tallbloke says:

    We’ve been chatting about this in the UK for a few hours now. The general feeling is that this is a symbolic act, and that there is more to come before the final shape will be seen.

    I think the IPCC is an albatross for governments now. The writing is on the wall. It’ll be interesting to see how other governments react. If IPCC was costing the U.S. $15m I wonder what their total budget is?

  3. c1ue says:

    I’m not sure why this was posted? While the news is interesting, it is odd that the version posted is the one which is apparently alarmist – at least the numerous mentions of denialist and what not would seem to indicate that.

    Certainly there are no ‘good’ sides to this particular issue, but nonetheless the shoe being on the other foot should equally be presented from the normal WUWT point of view.

    REPLY: it’s news, get over it. – Anthony

  4. D Caldwell says:

    Elections have consequences….

  5. Douglas DC says:

    “Know nothings?” In the middle of a nasty cold eastern winter? talk about
    know nothings….
    More like the last desperate gasp of the Gaia cult…

  6. G. Karst says:

    Finally, if only, we could get a refund. GK

  7. Galvanize says:

    Blessings from across the pond!

    Is it up to the Senate to drive this nail home?

  8. Roger Knights says:

    Next up, GISS.

  9. JDN says:

    Who is writing this? I’m wondering why they are calling scientific realism a “denial machine”?

  10. Hawkwood says:

    Now if we can get the Canadian government to do the same it will sent a clear message to the EU and the rest of the world that we aren’t buying into this nonsense.

  11. Roger Longstaff says:

    This is excellent! But can your Senate, or President, block it? (I am an ignorant Limey).

  12. Paul C says:

    Canada will have to wait , as we are being set up for another election.
    However if the Liberals push another Carbon agenda they will again be spanked by the voting public.
    It happened last election , but the media spouted the loss as an unpopular frankaphone , leader.
    However Canadians know where the “Mega tons of money” would come from and where it would go.

  13. Bruce Cobb says:

    Ah the Republicans, bless their hearts. Putting sugar in the gas tank feeding the CAGW engine, one teaspoon at a time. Fun.

  14. Jimbo says:

    Great news! The AGW monster is being dealt a thousand cuts and many nails in the coffin. Let’s hope the end is indeed nigh.

  15. Brian H says:

    As Anthony said, it’s from “Climate Science Watch”, one of the Warmist party-line sites. It’s interesting to see how disgruntled they are! It’s game on! Repubs vs Obama and “the scientists”, is their take.

    Heh.

  16. AdrianS says:

    “Things can only get better, can only get better….”
    At last a bit of reality

  17. Steve Keohane says:

    Roger Longstaff says: February 19, 2011 at 8:58 am
    This is excellent! But can your Senate, or President, block it? (I am an ignorant Limey).

    It is true either can, and Obama has said he will veto the spending bill with these attachments. I would guess it unlikely for this bill to get past the liberally-controlled Senate. I expect a stand-off as to who can stand the most pain, no budget at all, or one with compromises.

  18. Neo says:

    Everybody take a deep breath … see, it’s not that bad.

  19. Taphonomic says:

    Galvanize says:
    “Is it up to the Senate to drive this nail home?”

    The Senate doesn’t like this.

    This is for a new continuing resolution for Fiscal Year 2010 (October 2010 through September 2011). So far a budget for this fiscal year (FY) has never been passed and the government is operating on a “continuing resolution”, which means that everything is funded as it was for FY 2009. The previously elected House of Representatives shirked its duty to prepare a FY 2010 budget (afraid of the political fallout in an election year; it didn’t really help them much, passing Obamacare led to a slaughter of Democrats). This new FY 2010 continuing resolution proposed by the Republican majority House of Representives contains many things that the Democatic majority Senate and president do not like (cuts to EPA, funding for Yucca Mountain, cuts to Planned Parenthood, cuts to National Public Radio, cuts to the IPCC, etc). The Senate and the House can try to reach an agreement that the President will either sign or veto. If not, the House and Senate will either pass another continuing resolution at FY 2009 levels or shut down the government. The current continuing resolution runs out of funding on March 4. The Democrats in the Senate are already threatning that after March 4, checks for Social Security, Medicare, etc. will not be sent out as the governement will be shut down due to the Republicans.

    Ain’t politics fun???

  20. walt man says:

    2007 US contributions were $2M
    http://www.ipcc.ch/meetings/session28/doc6.pdf

    To 2008 US contributions TOTALLED $34M over 21 years
    http://www.ipcc.ch/meetings/session30/doc3.pdf

    “In 2009 the cosmetics industry in the U.S. is expected to reach $60.37 billion, which represents a decline of about 1.2% from 2008.”
    http://www.ibisworld.com/Common/MediaCenter/Cosmetic%20Special%20Report.pdf

    So around 0.05% of cosmetic spend (a personal choice of course) is spent by the US on the IPCC.

    How much of an Albatross (tallbloke) is £100M over 21 years? When spread out over 50 contributors?? It is 1/1000 of the money spent on cosmetics in US in one year.

  21. Steven Hoffer says:

    How does that old saying go….

    those on the right feel that those on the left are misguided.

    those on the left feel that those on the right are evil.

    and the more misguided they get, the more apparently evil I am.

  22. DJ says:

    This is a simple and expedient way to send the message to large, corrupt organizations…like the IPCC and the EPA.

    It’s also a way of balancing the effective defunding of scientists who don’t hold hands with the “consensus”, and, well, that’s the way it works.

    Decry foul play by republicans if you will, but it’s really the result of the system working, albeit slowly, lumbering, and inefficiently. The democrats had their day, and they’ve bungled it. No doubt the republicans will bungle as well, but only by keeping the pressure on will we have true science exposed to the light of day.

    We must have the freedom to judge for ourselves if Michael Mann is right, or if Richard Lindzen is. The IPCC denies me that right, so I deny them my money.

  23. Hawkwood says:

    PM Harper killed the Bill c-311 Climate Change Accountability Act in the Senate last November. That would have bound us to unattainable, economically ruinous CO2 emission targets. Personally, I don’t think there will be an election this spring and I don’t think the Liberals, NDP, Bloc and Greens would attempt another Green Shift in this economic climate. (Info- Canada has had a minority government lead by the Conservative Party since 2006.) Certainly the provincial “green” initiatives in Ontario and British Columbia have voters very unhappy about the costs with little or no benefit.

  24. don penman says:

    I am not convinced that anything is happening to the climate today that is anything unusual. I have listened to the AGW side and the scientific evidence, I am not in denial about anything that has been said. If you believe that man is altering the Earths climate dangerously then you should have the right to express that view but I have the right to disagree with that opinion. The narrow scientific opinion that AGW represents should not try to dictate to the public and Governments what they ought to do by using the peril that the earth is in as an excuse. I do not want to live in a world where what we can and cannot do is dictated by scientists in the same way that our lives were ordered by religious doctrine in the middle ages.

  25. Expect to see the “anti science” meme this week from every corner.

  26. Smokey says:

    They didn’t go far enough. The entire UN should be defunded.

  27. RockyRoad says:

    c1ue says:
    February 19, 2011 at 8:38 am

    Certainly there are no ‘good’ sides to this particular issue, but nonetheless the shoe being on the other foot should equally be presented from the normal WUWT point of view.

    My response comes in a question: “Where have you been?”
    Are you saying US taxpayers should continue to fund an organization that is blatantly misguided in how they do their business? Are you saying US taxpayers should throw their money away on garbage? I answer “NO” to both–welcome to the “good” sides of this particular issue.

  28. greg2213 says:

    Thank goodness the Republicans are showing some guts. Haven’t seen that since the Clinton years and it’s about time. It’s also good that CSW reported it and bad that their understanding is so poor. But, as Anthony says, It’s news.

  29. RockyRoad says:

    JDN says:
    February 19, 2011 at 8:51 am

    Who is writing this? I’m wondering why they are calling scientific realism a “denial machine”?

    Equating “scientific realism” and “denial machine” gives me profound hope. It certainly shows that the climsci/CAGW crowd runs around clueless in La La Land.

  30. Alex says:

    “So around 0.05% of cosmetic spend (a personal choice of course) is spent by the US on the IPCC.”

    And?

  31. kforestcat says:

    Gentlemen

    I watched most of the proceedings last night and into the early morning. In addition to the IPCC vote, one of the most interesting aspects of this session was the number of times the EPA’s and other agencies were cited as being out of control, using questionable data, and their exceeding authority. By my recollection, every vote brought up concerning the EPA resulted in further cuts and restrictions in the EPA budget. Frankly I lost count at the number of times this happened. It was a very hearting experience.

    As a side note, NOAA was also brought to heel by Chairman Hall via an amendment 495 “to prohibit the use of funds to implement, establish, or create a NOAA Climate Service…” The vote passed 233 to 187.

    I slept very well last night (err..this morning).

    Regards, Kforestcat

  32. Joe Public says:

    Do UK taxpayers contribute to IPCC?

  33. John Peter says:

    This will boil down to who blinks first. I vaguely remember a similar stand-off between Pres. Clinton and the Reps under Gingrich. The Reps. blinked at the prospect of public reaction to shutting down the government (Clinton was popular). Maybe the Reps. will win this time as they have perhaps a majority of US citizens looking for budget reductions and will blame Obama and the democrats for being spendthrift. Interesting times. I do hope for a Rep. victory and some good congressional hearings on AGW and the “science” underpinning same. If UHA temperatures continue to plummet that would be a good background for the hearings. Where is the global warming chaps?

  34. In the full article it quotes Waxman, the guy they claim understands the issue as saying, “After all, these are scientists who have won the Nobel Prize for their scientific acitivites.”

    If they won for “scientific activities” then they would’ve won a science-based Nobel – not the pinnacle “attaboy” of the left known as the Nobel Peace Prize.

  35. ew-3 says:

    Cairo comes to the U.S.

    The winds of change are blowing…

  36. DSW says:

    walt man, you miss a crucial point – the cosmetic sales (kudos for picking something superfluous) are a choice of how to spend money earned. Tax money being sent by mislead politicians to an organization rife with the appearance of impropriety (more like actual impropriety) isn’t a conscious choice by taxpayers who are fed up with Congressmen spending our money like a teenager with their parents credit card. There are a lot more cuts coming and this is as good a place to start as any. Spending bills originate in the People’s house for a reason – it’s the People’s money and the past election was a clear indication that the majority don’t want public funds to be spent on non-necessary expenditures. U.S. citizens are free to make private contributions if they want, but I guarantee those that are screeching the loudest about this will be the least generous with their own money.

    Socialism/collectivism is the best form of government until you run out of other people’s money.

  37. Shevva says:

    @walt man says:
    February 19, 2011 at 9:27 am

    What has cosmetic’s got to do with the UN? and it’s funding.

    hey look over there ->

  38. Smokey says:

    walt man,

    I resent having even one dime of my tax money go to the completely corrupt UN or to its advocacy organ, the IPCC. The world’s poor are never helped by the UN. Tax money administered by the UN is used to line the pockets of its corrupt officials, and whatever is left over never goes to those in need. Instead, it goes into the pockets of local strongmen, warlords, foreign government officials, and advocacy groups that toady up to the UN. Show us a country where the poor and destitute have ever been helped by the UN. Bangladesh? Palestine? Congo? Egypt? Haiti? U.S. tax money supposedly intended for the world’s poor is always intercepted by UN thieves and their cronies. And when the poor riot, the media instantly assigns blame to corporations, or bankers, or anyone except the true perp: the UN, which has stolen the funds intended for the poor of the world.

    The UN/IPCC itself is totally anti-science. Where are its skeptical scientists? A skeptical scientist is the only honest kind of scientist — so of course the IPCC has no skeptics in any position of authority. Alarmist UN/IPCC scientists preach doom and disaster for one reason: to increase the funding and power of the UN. Amazingly, there are lots of useful idiots who unquestioningly swallow the UN’s story line. Every time I see someone appeal to the authority of an IPCC Assessment Report I think to myself: There’s another fool at a keyboard. If the IPCC had valid science, its members would not be afraid to step up and debate their position. But like scoundrels everywhere, they hide out instead.

    It is the unstated policy of the UN to theive every last dollar from the U.S. The organization is rotten to the core and is staffed by the world’s most corrupt reprobates. Its blue-helmeted soldiers steal supplies intended for those in need and rape the men and women they are sent to protect, without any fear of prosecution. The countries that most egregiously violate human rights are placed on the UN’s Human Rights Commission. WTF??

    It is hard to imagine a more corrupt, dishonest and self-serving bunch of kleptocrats. Sending any of our tax money to people who hate us and use the money to advance anti-American goals is madness.

    The world would be much better off if each individual country negotiated with allies and adversaires on a one-to-one basis. The notion that the UN gives countries a forum to discuss differences falsely assumes that countries would not have the same discussions without the UN. The sooner this corrupt organization is defunded the better for taxpayers everywhere. And especially for the world’s poorest and most destitute.

  39. PaulH says:

    Luetkemeyer’s attack on the UN panel is described here (MS Word file):

    http://probeinternational.org/library/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/House-Passes-Luetkemeyer-Amendment-to-Halt-Taxpayer-Financing-of-UN-Climate-Panel.doc

    Of course, there are plenty of other gullible governments who will keep the cash flowing.

  40. Theo Goodwin says:

    walt man says:
    February 19, 2011 at 9:27 am

    “So around 0.05% of cosmetic spend (a personal choice of course) is spent by the US on the IPCC. How much of an Albatross (tallbloke) is £100M over 21 years? When spread out over 50 contributors?? It is 1/1000 of the money spent on cosmetics in US in one year.”

    But the cosmetics industry actually produces something of value, happy babes. By contrast, the IPCC produces nothing but fantasies, especially Pachauri’s masturbatorial fantasies.

  41. Theo Goodwin says:

    John Peter says:
    February 19, 2011 at 9:54 am
    “This will boil down to who blinks first. I vaguely remember a similar stand-off between Pres. Clinton and the Reps under Gingrich. The Reps. blinked at the prospect of public reaction to shutting down the government (Clinton was popular). Maybe the Reps. will win this time as they have perhaps a majority of US citizens looking for budget reductions and will blame Obama and the democrats for being spendthrift.”

    Probably. Even that influential bastion of Left-Speak, the Washington Post, called foul on Obama for his non-serious budget.

  42. Arfur Bryant says:

    @ Joe Public

    “Do UK taxpayers contribute to IPCC?”

    It appears we may well do, mate…

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7176262/Climate-makes-money-move-in-mysterious-ways.html

    Not that I always trust newspapers, you understand.

    IMO, amidst all the celebrations, I am actually slightly dismayed. Having the IPCC on the ‘Warmist/Alarmist’ side was one of the ‘Sceptic/Denier’ side’s best weapons! That, and objectivity…

    AB

  43. walt man says:

    IPCC figures are CHF not $ (4% diff)

    there are 139,960,580 tax payers in the US
    in 2008 US contributed $1,425,000

    The IPCC cost each taxpayer $0.01 in 2008.

    The total UK contribution to IPCC is £3.1M over 21 years
    =================
    “Jimbo says: February 19, 2011 at 9:01 am
    Great news! The AGW monster is being dealt a thousand cuts and many nails in the coffin. Let’s hope the end is indeed nigh.”

    Unfortunately if AGW is true then the end is not nigh. Delaying taking action now pushes the problems onto our future generations.
    The IPCC funds no research. It collates, acts as a facilitator for scientific meetings and publishes. Killing the IPCC will not stop research showing that the world is heading for trouble (no it is not heading for disater!).

  44. Frank Perdicaro says:

    Tis all very interesting to watch.

    In the US, the spending bills come from the House, which is elected by the people
    every 2 years. Spending bills are then sent to the Senate, and occasionally back
    to the House in amended form. Then the bill goes to the President.

    In this case, with the Republicans in control, the House is simply de-funding the
    EPA and IPCC. There is no plan for spending, no allocation, no appropriation in the
    spending plan. If this bill gets to the President, and he vetos it, there will be no
    spending at all. Not just on the EPA, but on all Federal programs. The EPA
    is vulnerable because it is drunk on power, spends too much. More important,
    the basic premise of how the EPA fits in the Constitutional scheme has been
    strongly undermined by recent court rulings on firearms issues.

    As a practical political matter, we have to work on the trivial first. If anybody
    in the House proposed what is actually needed today, the bills would never make
    it out of the House. We need a radical simplification of the tax code and a major
    trimming of social spending.

  45. Jim G says:

    Though I am a card carrying Republican, don’t count too much on them not “compromising” to satisfy their corporate or other contributors to their campaign funds, which they all get to keep when they run home. Little doubt, though, that the Republicans are the lesser of two evils with the other parties all a waste of a vote. Hopefully the new Tea Party members of congress will improve the situation and prhaps fear of being thrown out will begin to taylor Democrat attitudes in the Senate, though I don’t see it yet.

  46. johnboy says:

    I have to contact my senator[john kerry] to vote to defund the EPA////how’s that going to go??Mass. is doomed[at least TED is dead]

  47. walt man says:

    “Smokey says: February 19, 2011 at 10:17 am you say:
    Where are its skeptical scientists?”

    If science says that the earth is an oblate spheroid shape, but others say it is flat…
    If science says the sun is not solid but others say it is a gas layer surrounding an iron core…
    If science says that disease is caused by bacteria but others say that it is caused by miasmata…

    Then should these others be given equal airtime to the science? Many could be taken in by the non-science.

    The IPCC have published a number of papers that do not follow the AGW theories

  48. Smokey says:

    walt man says:

    “The IPCC cost each taxpayer $0.01 in 2008.”

    That is 1¢ too much.

  49. Fred from Canuckistan says:

    Now if they would just defund the UN . . . . think of the good that could be done in the world if that blowhard, rent seeking, power crazy America hating organization could be neutered.

    I wonder if the USA is borrowing money from China to pay their excessive UN dies right now, or is it funded with “real” money from American taxpayers?

  50. galileonardo says:

    c1ue,

    I had the opposite reaction to the usage of that particular news source: laughter! At first I thought it was parody! And who doesn’t love a good “denial machine” reference? C’mon!

    It’s just another great illustration of the “political science” at work (love the fact that Dr. Austin echoes the sentiment I’ve often made). Do get over it. Everyone’s busy. Mr. Watts, and most of the rest of us for that matter, can only do what we can do. There are plenty of sources out there of every flavor if people are interested in getting the entire picture.

    I do agree that the short lead describing it as a “bit political” doesn’t really capture it, so a tweak would improve the presentation for the, shall I say, uninitiated, but again, folks are busy. Thank Anthony instead for his offerings as I again will now.

    Thanks again Mr. Watts for all the hard work you and the rest of the crew put in to bring us the news and for offering a great and open venue for all those concerned with this issue. Keep up the great work.

    And as RockyRoad notes, there is a “good” side in this debate, and it isn’t all that difficult to dissect. Indeed, where have you been?

  51. Peter Miller says:

    John Holdren is a name I have not heard of before from the alarmist camp, is he a new member of the Team? From the tone of the article, he is a typical purveyor of climate scare stories, but apparently with the ear of His Obamaship.

    I had to chuckle at the idiocy of this quote: “I think it is going to be very hard to persuade people that climate change is somehow a fraud.”

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12508050

  52. oMan says:

    I am in no position to second-guess the numbers being offered by Walt Man and others on how much the taxpayers have to hand over for IPCC. But I wonder if the real number is higher? IPCC’s direct budget, for office space and internet and staff salaries, is only a fraction of the resource it consumes. Its primary fuel is the time of the many editors, reviewers, contributors, etc etc, to whom it looks for ideas, information, text for the next edition of We’re All Gonna Die. How many FTEs does that represent? How many of the FTEs are on government payroll, or funded by government grants to them, their departments at Mudflat U, etc etc? My point is not that we should obsess about accounting for every dime (no hope of that); but that the spending is like an iceberg, mostly hidden in other folks’ budgets. And that’s probably a big reason why IPCC could flourish for so long, and do so much damage. It wasn’t really “there” in terms of institutional surveillance and accountability.

  53. Here is what I posted there!

    If “Climate Change” political scientists are such an Intelligent bunch, why didn’t any of them think that promoting “Climate Change” as a global catastrophic problem for research funding that supports the environmental political agenda of taxing more people so they use less, rolling back industry by “taxing it into the stone age” resulting in governments being unable to afford funding for useless research in the first place. What were they thinking?
    Maybe they should try to make a living on the carbon markets and ask them for funding! Not only are the political environmentalists trying to take away individuals responsibility for the environment they live in, They have been so deceptive at going about it, they have also dragged Science through the dirt with unfair treatment of many other scientists who disagree with much of their research.

  54. harrywr2 says:

    Galvanize says:
    February 19, 2011 at 8:48 am

    “Is it up to the Senate to drive this nail home?”

    The US government officially runs out of money March 4th. So by March 4th the US House, US Senate and the President have to agree a budget or there will be No Cash for Nobody.

    The Senate will make modifications to the budget passed by the House, then the modified budget has to go back to the House to be voted on again. When the House and Senate get done playing ping-pong, it goes to the President who has a ‘take or leave it’ choice. If he doesn’t take it the whole process starts again.

  55. Zeke the Sneak says:

    Nice cuts! Beautiful work. Now, Republicans and Democrats: Do not even think about raising the debt ceiling:

    “As a debate heats up over whether to raise the federal debt ceiling to $14.3 trillion, Americans have already made up their minds: Don’t even think about it.

    In a survey of 915 adults taken from Jan. 30 to Feb. 5, the IBD/TIPP Poll shows an overwhelming 70% agree that “Congress should not increase the debt limit.” That’s a stunning number, when you think about it.

    Geithner — and others — have warned that financial markets would melt down if Congress doesn’t raise the debt ceiling. That doesn’t have to be the case. If Congress shows it’s serious about actually cutting spending, it might have the opposite effect on markets — and the added benefit of not forcing our grandchildren to pay even more taxes for our reckless profligacy.”

    IBD Editorial

  56. DSW says:

    walt man says:

    “The IPCC cost each taxpayer $0.01 in 2008.”

    And that is the exact attitude that keeps increasing spending at a time when it needs to be decreased. You obviously don’t successfully budget your money.

  57. Hank Zentgraf says:

    In 1988 the IPCC’s fatal decision to direct world scientists to focus primarily on the anthropologic influences on climate before understanding the natural influences led to circular reasoning, biased funding, biased publishing, and the acceptance of shoddy research. It is time to push the IPCC delete button.

  58. Smokey says:

    walt man says:

    “If science says that the earth is an oblate spheroid shape, but others say it is flat…
    If science says the sun is not solid but others say it is a gas layer surrounding an iron core…
    If science says that disease is caused by bacteria but others say that it is caused by miasmata…”

    * * *

    If walt man says cosmetics are the same as the corrupt UN/IPCC…☺

    Sorry walt man, but skeptical scientists are the only honest kind of scientists. There’s a reason why the IPCC doesn’t employ skeptical scientists: the IPCC is dishonest, see? The IPCC is as scientific as Scientology.

    OK, you can go back to conflating your cosmetics with UN funding now.

  59. William says:

    Finally, clarity and action. Enough is enough.

    “My constituents should not have to continue to foot the bill for an organization to keep producing corrupt findings that can be used as justification to impose a massive new energy tax on every American.”

  60. ew-3 says:

    the last budget submitted by W was 3,100 billion dollars.
    the current budget submitted by H is 3,800 billion dollars.

    in two years the budget has gone up 700 billions dollars.
    that’s about 11% a year.
    How many of us have increased our home budgets by 11% per year.

    And the dems complain about 60 billion dollars in cuts.
    something is really wrong here.

  61. Britannic-no-see-um says:

    Great news. Sadly we can only dream of such things here, behind the carbon curtain.

  62. Theo Goodwin says:

    walt man says:
    February 19, 2011 at 10:43 am

    “If science says that disease is caused by bacteria but others say that it is caused by miasmata…Then should these others be given equal airtime to the science? Many could be taken in by the non-science.”

    You really should learn something about Western civilization. A bedrock belief of the Western world is that the market place of ideas should be the arbiter of truth. Every idea must be admitted to the market place; otherwise, there is no opportunity for people to criticize the idea and discover that it is false. (Please note that the arbiters of truth are the individuals who make up the market.) The last of the great Western thinkers to hold this position and explicate it beautifully was John Stuart Mill. There have been many after Mill but not quite of his stature.

    To take the other approach is to reveal that you are a Totalitarian and that you are quite willing to control a person’s mind through controlling what that mind is permitted to hear or read. There is not one Warmista who is not a Totalitarian mind controller. That was the entire point of their meme “the science is settled.” It was designed to end questioning, end debate, end rational criticism and end climate science. It is the common practice of Real Climate, The Guardian, and all who belong to that nasty little totalitarian herd.

    What does science say is the cause of manic paranoia among deluded crowds in the 21st Century? I say it is the same old totalitarian push and today its main vehicle is CAGW. By contrast, no free market of ideas has ever suffered from deluded crowds or manic paranoia.

  63. Theo Goodwin says:

    Hank Zentgraf says:
    February 19, 2011 at 11:05 am
    “In 1988 the IPCC’s fatal decision to direct world scientists to focus primarily on the anthropologic influences on climate before understanding the natural influences led to circular reasoning, biased funding, biased publishing, and the acceptance of shoddy research. It is time to push the IPCC delete button.”

    Yes, stupidest decision in the history of mankind. Of course, those who foisted it upon us saw it as a self-fulfilling prophecy and a road to riches.

  64. Andrew30 says:

    DSW says: February 19, 2011 at 10:16 am
    “walt man, you miss a crucial point – the cosmetic sales (kudos for picking something superfluous)”

    I think Walt should have picked heroin or cocaine spending as something that could be compared with IPPC spending (or maybe even the whole UN funding). All three have the same basic properties, the illusion of reality when in use, staffed by corrupt persons, operating in a global tax-free market, selling the dream and leaving you nothing of substance to show for your money. Oh, and they all rot your brain if you can not stop the addiction.

  65. Mike Jonas says:

    TheTempestSpark says: “Here is what I posted there!

    By “there” I assume you mean Climate Science Watch.

    There are as yet no comments shown on the CSW page
    http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2011/02/19/house-votes-244-179-to-kill-u-s-funding-of-ipcc/

    I too posted a comment there about 7 hours ago (I have kept a screen image):
    So what if the IPCC is closed down. Scientific research will continue intact, because the IPCC did not do any research[*]. Scientists will continue to publish their research as usual. The removal of a very powerful partisan organisation like the IPCC will open up the scientific debate a bit, which is a good thing for science. The scientific process can come to the fore, and science should then prevail.
    Nullius in verba.
    [*] This really is true. The foreword to the IPCC Report (page v) states : “The IPCC does not conduct new research.”
    PS. Those Climategate emails were real.

    Will they publish the comments?

  66. George Tetley says:

    Smokey,
    Once again your reasoning ,is, in my humble opinion front page news.
    Thank You
    George

  67. Mark T says:

    walt man says:

    The IPCC have published a number of papers that do not follow the AGW theories

    Clueless. The IPCC do not publish any papers except their report and related propaganda. They are a meta-science organization that analyzes the science of others, which includes, apparently, other propaganda group publications such as those from Greenpeace and the WWF.

    Mark

  68. Don Shaw says:

    I watched the house efforts last night, as already mentioned there were numerous positive ammendments proposed that will if ultimately passed will restrict the EPA and other power grabbing departments of the Administration from imposing onerous requirements on our Country.
    Many of these were bipartisan and even some ammendments were either proposed by Democrats or strongly supported (such as reversing EPA previous approvals for coal mining in W Va.).
    I listened to Waxman spout his Kool Aid support for The IPCC along with other ammendments to reign in the EPA and was sickened for his dishonesty and ignoring the scientific facts.
    I can’t verify that this is a 100% accurate quote but the following summarizes his continuing support for criminal like behavior within the IPCC.

    This is the Waxman position now officially rejected by the House of Representatives:

    “Waxman: The U.S. contributes only $2.3 million to the IPCC. Our $2.3 million contribution leverages a global science assessment with global outreach and global technical input – a process we could not carry out alone and one that could come to a halt without U.S. support.

    Its work on climate change is unparallelled, and its four assessment reports to date have brought together thousands of scientists around the world, in disciplines ranging from atmospheric sciences, to forest ecology, to economics, to provide objective and policy-neutral information. The panel has attracted hundreds of the best U.S. scientists. In fact, a majority of the research that’s reviewed is undertaken in U.S. institutions.

    The IPCC’s work has been lauded by the U.S. Academy of Sciences, and by the Interacademy Council, a body comprised of the national academies of the world. The organization won the Nobel Prize in 2007 for its assessment work.

    This institution is a nonpartisan and technically extraordinarily sound organization. The Republican majority has already voted to prevent EPA from using funds to regulate greenhouse gases. Now we’re being asked to de-fund the work of international scientists to learn about the threat.

    The assumption seems to be that there is no threat, and therefore let’s not study it. I think that is not a wise assumption. This is a very shortsighted proposal to cut these funds. It’s like putting our heads in the sand, denying the science, and then stopping the scientists from working – because they might come to a different conclusion from the Republican Party’s ideology, in believing that there’s no problem and therefore we don’t need to know anything about it.

    If we’re not going to do anything here at home, at least work internationally to understand the threat and work with other countries to combat it.”

    Waxman totally ignores the corruption and misinformation of the IPCC and blindly wants us to waste taxpayers $$$ on an organization that is driven by the progressive agenda . Who is ignoring the scientific facts? Notice he uses the ugly word “denying”.
    That describes his lack of charcter and understanding of science perfectly.

  69. Steve in SC says:

    Not only should the IPCC be defunded but the entire UN should be defunded totally.
    This is the organization that gave you the criminal Maurice Strong. All the UN bureaucrats should be tried and executed for fraud and crimes against humanity.

    It will be good to see the dems stonewall over this and shut the government down.
    Maybe we can save a few bucks if ALL funding is stopped!

  70. Jim says:

    In all fairness Rajendra Pachauri deserves a pat on the back, his insistence as staying on as leader of the IPCC can only have helped.

  71. Theo Goodwin says:

    It just occurred to me that there is a practical point that Walt Man does not understand. Walt Man thinks of scientists as the repository of intelligence in a society and wonders why their views do not receive special treatment. It’s simple, Walt. When farmers need scientists, they hire them. If there were no farmers there would be no scientists. That has always been true and will always be true. Farmers built the state university system that now includes Penn State, Ohio State, and most other flagship state universities. So, Walt, it is a market place of ideas and farmers rule in that market place. It does not work the other way. The claim that if there were no scientists there would be no farmers is false. You have misplaced faith in the importance of scientists. Don’t feel bad; John Kerry holds the same politically disastrous views.

  72. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

    D Caldwell says:
    February 19, 2011 at 8:46 am

    Elections have consequences….

    Nice!

  73. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

    Galvanize says:
    February 19, 2011 at 8:48 am

    Blessings from across the pond!

    Is it up to the Senate to drive this nail home?

    The President has a veto pen. Two years till a new President. Which Republican will it be?

  74. oakgeo says:

    From the Climate Science Watch site, to which this post is linked, a quote from Democrat Rep. Henry Waxman:

    “I don’t see how the gentleman from Missouri can say that this is a ‘nefarious’ group of people. After all, these are scientists who have won the Nobel Prize for their scientific acitivites. I used to think that people from Missouri were the ‘show-me’ state. Now this gentleman from Missouri is suggesting, I don’t want to know about it. And I don’t think that’s what the position should be of the United States Congress. Let’s learn the facts, and then decide what to do about it, and not stop trying to learn what the science is behind the global threats.”

    1. “After all, these are scientists who have won the Nobel Prize for their scientific acitivites.” The IPCC’s Nobel Prize is the 2007 Peace Prize; it was not for scientific activities. Al Gore is a co-winner of the award, and he is a scientific illiterate who thinks the temperature of the Earth’s core is millions of degrees.

    2. “I used to think that people from Missouri were the ‘show-me’ state.” Well Mr. Waxman, Missouri continues to be the “show me” state. They have been shown that the IPCC is be rife with problems; they have been shown the unscientific bias of grey literature; and they have ultimately been shown a disconnected, advocating Summary for Policy Makers. And with the IPCC prepping for a 5th report, we all see that the show will go on.

    3;. “Let’s learn the facts, and then decide what to do about it, …” Let’s learn the facts, I agree, because the science is certainly not settled. Of course he ruins the neutrality of that statement by saying “… and not stop trying to learn what the science is behind the global threats.” As always, they use partisan assertions and catastrophic rhetoric to justify themselves.

    I’m really getting tired of the self-righteous indignation of the CAGW eco-warriors and their political hacks. They make me sick.

  75. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

    walt man

    Government spending is different than private spending. If you’d like you can give me some of your money to spend in ways that will cause further spending of your money down the road which will lead to spending even more of your money. I’m sure you’d like that.

    Sound good to you?

    The IPCC has caused billions in expenditure. And it has caused deaths through biofuel programs. Do you enjoy killing people?

    What a silly comparison you make to spending money on cosmetics to how much is spent on the IPCC.

  76. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

    Smokey says:
    February 19, 2011 at 9:36 am

    They didn’t go far enough. The entire UN should be defunded.

    Yes! Saving that $50 billion every year is needed right now in America. But instead they will print money to pay it, and so many other unneeded expenses. Inflation is now just starting from the continuing printing of money. And inflation is going to continue. There is no way around that when money is printed. 2012 might be a bad year in America.

  77. jorgekafkazar says:

    walt man says: “…The IPCC cost each taxpayer $0.01 in 2008.’

    Theft is still theft. Shut them off. That 1 cent is being used against us. Your argument is specious.

  78. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

    thegoodlocust says:
    February 19, 2011 at 10:07 am

    Nobel – not the pinnacle “attaboy” of the left known as the Nobel Peace Prize.

    I really like how Thomas Sowell puts it, that, the Nobel Peace Prize is the Kentucky Derby of the famous names of the political left.

  79. Jim G says:

    You have to look at it from the communist point of view, control the media & tell a lie enough times and becomes the truth for the great unwashed multitude. Has worked so far with AGW.

  80. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

    William says:
    February 19, 2011 at 11:22 am

    Finally, clarity and action. Enough is enough.

    “My constituents should not have to continue to foot the bill for an organization to keep producing corrupt findings that can be used as justification to impose a massive new energy tax on every American.”

    Nahhh! It’s the same as buying Maybelline.

    /sarc

  81. Green Sand says:

    Next NGOs – WWF 2010 revenue from Government Grants and Contracts $40m up from $28m in 2007.

  82. tallbloke says:

    walt man says:
    February 19, 2011 at 9:27 am
    How much of an Albatross (tallbloke) is £100M over 21 years? When spread out over 50 contributors?? It is 1/1000 of the money spent on cosmetics in US in one year.

    I think it’s less about the money than the stigma attached to climategate. An ill omen indeed.

  83. John Peter says:

    walt man says:
    February 19, 2011 at 10:43 am

    “If science says that disease is caused by bacteria but others say that it is caused by miasmata…

    Then should these others be given equal airtime to the science? Many could be taken in by the non-science.”

    That is an interesting point. If disease is caused by bacteria only then presumably we should all perish. Even the worst diseases ever have left a good number of humans to survive. They have resistance when others have not. A different “miasmata” perhaps. Call it what you like but often some are struck down by a particular bacteria we all carry at a particular time. This is an individual response and shows the blanket acceptance of a scientific theory is not always right and it is so obvious that it does not always apply 100% or maybe never above 50%. The same with AGW. It is sweeping in its pronouncements, but if you listen to people such as Dr Roy Spencer, CO2 may account for around 20% of global warming over the last 100 years or around 0.2 degree C max.

  84. H.R. says:

    The very last sentance got me.
    The administration also says the ban would cost thousands of construction jobs.

    I’m thinking make-work jobs prepping for wind farms that will never happen, if they are referring to “green jobs.” If my money is going to be wasted on make-work, I’d prefer the administration blow the money on murals in public areas as was done in the 1930s. At least we’d get something nice to gaze upon.
    .
    .
    Wait! On second thought, if you really want to fund make-work, wind turbines are great!
    Jobs to make them. Jobs to install them. Jobs to maintain them. Jobs to tear them down after they fail. Of course the requisite studies will have to be made at each step and there will be tons of paperwork that needs to be filled out in triplicate, stamped by inumerable unrelated agencies and signed by people whose job it is to sign such paperwork, and then all that paperwork will have to be scanned and the electronic files backed up in perpetuity.
    .
    .
    .
    Nahhh… I think I’ll stick with murals in public areas.

  85. BBk says:

    Roger Longstaff says: February 19, 2011 at 8:58 am
    This is excellent! But can your Senate, or President, block it? (I am an ignorant Limey).

    It is true either can, and Obama has said he will veto the spending bill with these attachments. I would guess it unlikely for this bill to get past the liberally-controlled Senate. I expect a stand-off as to who can stand the most pain, no budget at all, or one with compromises.

    Yes and no… senate and president can refuse to agree on this budget, but then there’s NO budget, which as far as the IPCC is concerned means the same thing. The house is unlikely to approve ANY budget containing money for the IPCC, even if this particular bill isn’t the one ultimately passed.

  86. walt man says:

    Amino Acids in Meteorites says: February 19, 2011 at 12:52 pm

    …If you’d like you can give me some of your money to spend in ways that will cause further spending of your money down the road which will lead to spending even more of your money. I’m sure you’d like that…

    I would be pleased to contribute $0.01 to a fund enabling you to research non-AGW. Send me your address and a prepaid envelope.

    The IPCC has caused billions in expenditure. And it has caused deaths through biofuel programs.

    I did not know that the IPCC was involved in biofuels. Care to share a reference?

    hmmm!
    Who Supports Biofuels (bio-ethanol etc)
    is it the Greenies?
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8559661.stm

    Environmentalists fear it is – and their latest manoeuvre to stem the biofuel tide is a legal action to force the European Commission to publish thousands of pages of evidence of the impacts of plant fuels on the environment.

    Green campaigners want to see all the background research immediately because they believe that some of the papers already confirm that biofuels may do more harm than good.

    The environmentalists say they suspect that the Commission’s analysis contains explosive evidence that could blow the EU’s biofuels strategy apart

    Green groups have also been angered by a separate EU policy statement leaked to BBC News. They say it could grant plantations of palm oil the same status as natural rainforests.

    Kenneth Richter from Friends of the Earth said: “This is absolutely appalling – they are bending over backwards to support the palm oil industry. To equate a palm oil plantation in the same category as a rainforest is dishonest and outrageous.” When I queried the Commission about this policy, they declined to comment.

    But environmentalists point out that the E4tech study doesn’t even attempt to factor in the other potentially malign side-effects of fuel crops displacing food crops.

    http://www.vivergofuels.com/web/about
    Vivergo Fuels

    Who are the backers? Greenies again?
    BP is one of the world’s largest energy companies, offering expertise in fuels technology and access to major fuel markets.

    British Sugar offers experience across the agricultural value chain, links to feedstock supply, and co-product expertise.

    DuPont holds expertise in biotechnology and bio-manufacturing capabilities.

    Looks like misguided government policies and Oil industries to me

    From a UK biofuel co:
    http://www.vivergofuels.com/
    they take 1.1 M tonnes high starch grain
    create 420M litres bioethanol
    +500,000 tonnes high protein animal feed

    so is it that bad?
    I think it is wrong to use food this way!

    The comparisons I made were simply about the money not the product. IPCC funding make no visible dent in the economy of most countries.

  87. BBk says:

    “The IPCC’s work has been lauded by the U.S. Academy of Sciences, and by the Interacademy Council, a body comprised of the national academies of the world. The organization won the Nobel Prize in 2007 for its assessment work.

    This institution is a nonpartisan and technically extraordinarily sound organization. The Republican majority has already voted to prevent EPA from using funds to regulate greenhouse gases. Now we’re being asked to de-fund the work of international scientists to learn about the threat.

    The assumption seems to be that there is no threat, and therefore let’s not study it. I think that is not a wise assumption. This is a very shortsighted proposal to cut these funds. It’s like putting our heads in the sand, denying the science, and then stopping the scientists from working – because they might come to a different conclusion from the Republican Party’s ideology, in believing that there’s no problem and therefore we don’t need to know anything about it.”

    The IPCC doesn’t study a thing. It writes a very expensive paper gathering information from other sources. Mostly sources that support their thesis, but other sources never-the-less. Whether the IPCC exists or not, scientific funding is a seperate issue.

    Congress sees no point in paying people to tell us what we “want/don’t want” to hear (depending on who is in control of congress at the time), because the message our of the IPCC is a foregone conclusion at this point. Why pay for a slightly ammended version of last year’s paper?

  88. paulID says:

    walt man
    what color is the sky in your world where science is absolute and moderated by political fiat. [trimmed]

  89. cal says:

    walt man says:
    February 19, 2011 at 9:27 am
    So around 0.05% of cosmetic spend (a personal choice of course) is spent by the US on the IPCC.

    How much of an Albatross (tallbloke) is £100M over 21 years? When spread out over 50 contributors?? It is 1/1000 of the money spent on cosmetics in US in one year.

    —————-

    I remember the same type of argument being used by John Cleese bemoaning the underfunding of the “Ministry of Silly Walks”.

  90. Karen D says:

    I like this Congress, they are moving in the right direction. The fact that an amendment to defund the IPCC came up — and passed! — is in itself a major step forward.

    Thanks for posting this important piece of news.

  91. Rocky H says:

    One of my favorite blogs reports on a “scientific smackdown” of AGW:

    http://maggiesfarm.anotherdotcom.com/archives/16631-Scientific-smackdown!.html

  92. Rocky H says:

    walt man says:

    “”IPCC funding make no visible dent in the economy of most countries.””

    The problem walt man is that the IPCC uses that money to spread disinformation. It doesn’t matter how much or how little money is involved. The problem is that the IPCC is pushing a cAGW agenda in order to secure more funding for itself and to promote a cap and tax scheme. The IPCC should be defunded and disbanded for spreading a false alarm.

  93. Esther Cook says:

    Obama sez we’d lose thousands of construction jobs. I am sure we will. And since it has been estimated that each green job costs six other jobs, our Congresscritters have saved tens of thousands of jobs! Who woulda thunk they could ever do anything right?

  94. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    House votes to block EPA’s global warming power
    —-
    (…) The administration also says the ban would cost thousands of construction jobs.

    But the Stimulus Bill created (or saved) tens to hundreds of thousands of construction jobs, by funding very many infrastructure and green energy projects, just as the Big O said would happen. It was so successful that he was again promoting spending on infrastructure and green energy during the budget battles after the November elections with the lame-duck Democrat-controlled House and Senate, wanting to create (or save) even more construction jobs. He was promoting such “investing” with such fervor, one could mistakenly assume the Stimulus Bill hadn’t done One Dang Thing for construction jobs and the Big O was asking for another try, like if somehow his administration could get it right next time.

    Thus we can well afford to lose a few to help the greater economy.

  95. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

    walt man

    So it’s a moral issue? Cosmetics and the IPCC? You made it into a prying with guilt? You are on the moral high ground?

  96. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

    How moral is a scientific/political movement? Should it be defunded? Yes. And it should be accountable to the public for it immorality:

  97. Corny, I know, but the words “God bless America” come to mind.

    And if Democrats choose to allow Government to be shut down over this, GOP needs to make it clear to the US voters that it is all due to Obama’s putting his pet $2.3 million UN project ahead of their social security cheques. Funding UN bureaucrat ahead of doing his job of governing America.

  98. Ed Scott says:

    This action was a long time coming. Let us hope that it maintains.

    I did not know that 98% of all scientific organizations believe in human-caused global warming and/or climate change before viewing the Senator Inhofe YouTube clip. Live and learn.

    I believe that Nature is constantly changing the environment on Earth and there is nothing we can do about it except adapt.

    The beauty of the IPCC attack on humanity is in their selection of Carbon Dioxide as the culprit. Notice that Carbon Dioxide is not explicitly mentioned but is now implicit in all discussions involving climate or temperature with the short-hand reference to Carbon in some instances (Carbon taxes). Carbon, being the basis of life-forms and the molecule, CO2, being necessary for the life-cycle of the Flora and Fauna of Earth’s Nature, is a politician’s dream as a source of tax revenues.

    It is like the Commerce Clause in the Constitution of the United States which the Congress deems to be justification for regulating and taxing all activity within the borders of the United States, although the southern border with Mexico is somewhat fuzzy with US citizens being warned to stay away from certain areas of the United States that have been set-aside as drug-trafficking routes.

    Inhofe Takes on Global Warming Alarmist Attempted Ambush

    Nothing personal. Of course not. No apologies necessary.

  99. Tom_R says:

    >> walt man says:
    February 19, 2011 at 10:29 am

    The IPCC cost each taxpayer $0.01 in 2008.

    The total UK contribution to IPCC is £3.1M over 21 years <<

    You're missing the green value in this. Cuttting off the IPCC funding will eliminate hundreds of flights to some tropical paradise. That's probably a CO2 reduction greater than all of the CO2 generated by your lifetime existance on this planet. And it saved you $0.01 too! What more could a greenie possibly ask for?

  100. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

    walt

    it’s just a penny a person? You sure? I’m not, not by a long shot

  101. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

    Rocky H

    walt man doesn’t want to talk about all the people that have died from biofuel programs that have aided in the rise of food prices.

  102. Mike Jonas says:
    February 19, 2011 at 11:56 am

    Yes that’s where I posted my comment too, I’ve checked back and no comments have been posted as yet! It will be interesting to see if they get published, I see no reason why the good people over there, who respect other peoples fair opinions wouldn’t. ;)

  103. 3x2 says:

    That is now the prevailing viewpoint of the majority party in the U.S. House of Representatives.

    While you revel in the great democratic experiment please spare a thought for the less fortunate. Here in the “EU” there will be no vote, majority or otherwise.

    The thieves you fought off a few hundred years ago still run the show here. So whether the IPCC vote or the EPA vote go one way or the other for you, just thank history that you actually get a vote.

    Here, it looks like the only way to stop our carbon scammers, before more of us die in yet another freezing northern winter with no fuel, is to take off their hands. Literally.

    Give us our dues though – we invented revolution (at least a hundred years before you lot). These votes (won or lost) are why, despite it’s many failings, US democracy works and why no vote in the Robber Barron paradise of Europe always ends in riots and detached heads.

  104. Bob Ashworth says:

    The IPCC has the climate change of carbon dioxide backwards. Just like Al Gore did with his “Inconvenient Truth” documentary when he said about the Vostok Ice Core data, that a CO2 increase came first that made the earth temperature to rise. It was just the opposite, a temperature increase came first, the oceans got warmer followed by an increased release of CO2 from the oceans to the atmosphere due to decreased solubility.

    Actually carbon dioxide causes a slight cooling effect. Its concentration in the atmosphere is only around 400 ppmv compared to water vapor that can be as high as 4%, at that level around 1% of that for water vapor. It was proved after 9-11 that contrails cause cooling. With grounded air traffic (no contrails) the temperature actually increased 1 degrees centigrade for the 3 days planes were grounded compared to the 3 day temperatures before and after the grounding.

    It ain’t rocket science; all clouds of water vapor shade the earth and cool it during the day. At night a cloud covered sky keeps the earth from cooling off as fast (insulating effect). However, the cooling effect during the day dwarfs the slight warming at night.

    With a slight increase of CO2 in the atmosphere the cooling effect is there but it is so small one could not measure it. When this truth becomes widely known, will people start another campaign to eliminate CO2 because it cools the earth ever so slightly?

    This climate change crap was always only about the money; there is no real science associated with it. Al Gore and David Blood of Goldman Sachs started Generation Investment Management in 2004 and in 2008 had $5 billion dollars in investments. It is a shame what has gone on but the world is waking up to the “Big Lie”.

  105. P Wilson says:

    congratulations, from the other side of the atlantic. Hope this vote against funding sets a precedent

  106. Henry chance says:

    My stomach hurts when Waxman’s name comes up. Remember he admitted he did not read the cap and trade bill. Suddenly he started reading? If you don’t read a bill with your name on it, I suspect he hasn’t suddenly become an avid reader.

  107. Chuck says:

    For years the IPPC ruled all our policies from the White House to the Mayor’s office of Punta Gorda.

    Now, the Mayor can change the Shingle.

    As for The White House, he can blame it on Bush.

  108. johanna says:

    walt man says:

    “If science says that the earth is an oblate spheroid shape, but others say it is flat…
    If science says the sun is not solid but others say it is a gas layer surrounding an iron core…
    If science says that disease is caused by bacteria but others say that it is caused by miasmata…”
    ——————————————————————-
    Who and where is this person called ‘science’ who speaks to us all, laying down the unquestionable truths?

    I don’t think you have the faintest idea what the word ‘science’ means.

    As for 1 cent per person or whatever for the IPCC – the amount is irrelevant. Do you think it would be OK for the taxpayer to subsidise Somali pirates if it were only half a cent per person? What a silly argument!

  109. Ted says:

    Going, going, gone. A long goodbye is better than than no goodbye at all. This is nothing but good news!

  110. AusieDan says:

    Meanwhile, back in Australia …….
    (nuf sed)

  111. Frank K. says:

    Great news. I suppose this means that NASA can cancel all of those expensive Model E computer runs for AR5…

    And to those such as walt man who think that funding the IPCC is important, please sell everything you own and give it to the IPCC. Or, better yet, organize a fundraiser (such as a bake sale or community dance) especially for IPCC funding. Average people will come out in droves to contribute. You could even create an infomerical for cable TV…the possibilities are endless!

  112. Ron Cram says:

    I don’t believe this bill, by itself, will have any impact on funding for the IPCC. The IPCC gets its funding from the UN. While the UN gets a great deal of funding from the US, the US will not completely defund the UN (even if that might be the best course of action). The US needs to trim about $1.8 trillion from its annual budget so I’m for cutting almost everything in sight.

    The best way to convince the UN to drop the IPCC is to offer an alternative assessment of the science, an idea I am still working on.

  113. Paul Jackson says:

    Roger Longstaff : This is excellent! But can your Senate, or President, block it? (I am an ignorant Limey).
    Appropriations bills have to originate in the House of Representatives. Typically the President drafts a budget request and sends it to the House to be entered as a spending bill (with appropriate Machievellian maneuvers of course); The Senate has to vote for or against it and if it’s against. the House negotiates a compromise with the Senate and tries again. When it gets to the president he can either vote it into law, veto it or just not sign it and let it die. If the President doesn’t sign it into law there is a chance that he’ll not get the money to run the government when the last appropriations expire and basically everybody working in the government that’s not mission critical stops getting paid and is told to go home! It’s not likely that even Obama will risk shutting down the government to fund the IPCC

  114. ImranCan says:

    The Republican congressman seemed to have a pretty accurate and succinct view of things. Well done.

  115. richcar 1225 says:

    Sen John Kerry on the attempt to cut heat subsidies:
    “I’ve always supported serious efforts to restore fiscal sanity, but in the middle of a brutal, even historic, New England winter, home heating assistance is more critical than ever to the health and welfare of millions of Americans, especially senior citizens,” Kerry wrote

  116. Rhoda R says:

    Above and beyond the 1 cent argument, the IPCC was being used to try to engineer a world government – or at least control of the sovergein states energy usage and to allow UN taxation. At least that’s what I took from the Agenda 21 info from Copenhagen.

  117. Theo Goodwin says:

    3×2 says:
    February 19, 2011 at 5:15 pm

    “The thieves you fought off a few hundred years ago still run the show here. So whether the IPCC vote or the EPA vote go one way or the other for you, just thank history that you actually get a vote.”

    I feel for you, quite sincerely. If it is any consolation, Britain will soon serve as proof that a Western government is at war with its people and quite willing to destroy them in the name of ideals that are truly fantastic.

  118. John Whitman says:

    Is it time to hang a sign above the entranceway to the IPCC HQ at the UN to discourage people who think there is a long term career within?

    Yes, the sign should read:

    “Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch’intrate”

    translated,

    “Abandon all hope, ye who enter here”

    Thanks Dante Alighieri.

    John

  119. John Whitman says:

    Moderators,

    Sorry I screwed up the terminating blockquote command in that last comment.

    Hope it doesn’t screw up this whole thread.

    John

  120. anorak2 says:

    @walt man

    I did not know that the IPCC was involved in biofuels. Care to share a reference?

    Indeed it doesn’t as such, but the IPCC is an important link in a political chain, at whose very end stand controversial (to put it mildly) policies such as biofuels.

    Who Supports Biofuels (bio-ethanol etc) is it the Greenies?

    Some of them do, yes, even though some don’t as such. That is good to know, but mostly irrelevant. The political process, at whose beginning stands a fabricated hysteria about “climate change”, ends in policies such as biofuel, even if not everyone involved in the chain agrees with the outcome.

    BP is one of the world’s largest energy companies, offering expertise in fuels technology and access to major fuel markets.

    We’ve been saying that all along. The “climate change” policies are about big business, about big powers about to change our societies according to their tastes. They are not a bit about climate, environment, or the betterment of people’s lives. The greenies are merely useful idiots, most of whom would not support the ends they ultimately serve if they could see through them.

  121. anorak2 says:

    @walt man:

    If science says the sun is not solid but others say it is a gas layer surrounding an iron core…

    If science says that disease is caused by bacteria but others say that it is caused by miasmata…

    Then should these others be given equal airtime to the science?

    You managed to misrepresent the scientific process wildly in these three lines. Science has, at different points in time, “said” all those things that you wrongly misattribute to “non-science”. The scientific process is about stating hypotheses and then weeding out the bad ones. Many hypotheses stated in that process are “said by science” at one time only to be found out to be wrong at a later stage. At the same time, no hypothesis is ever “proved” to be right. The best that could be said about any scientific hypothesis is that it survived all tests so far.

    We are witnesses of that process today. It is very well possible that the “dangerous global warming caused by humans” hypothesis may be disproved any time. Like all scientific hypotheses, it is not beyond doubt.

    The most important point though is that the debate is largely not about science, but about politics. The question if we want to fund biofuels, ration CO2 emissions, by consequence ration energy consumption, and by consequence cripple our economies, possibly deindustrialise the western nations and cause all kind of social unrests, is absolutely not a scientific one. I would be opposed to those policies even if the “dangerous global warming caused by humans” hypothesis were true word for word.

    So, defunding an important gremium in that political process is a political move to stop those policies. It’s not a statement about science.

  122. As much as I dislike politicians as a class, I admire Senator Inhofe’s professional restraint.

    The green zealots that caught him in the Capitol’s corridor obviously hoped that the senator would lose patience with them, and would go on record with something they would be able to ridicule in mass media. Mean, intellectually lazy, insidious bunch.

    But in the end they came through as liars, what with all their questions full of exaggerations and false assumptions, and senator has shown that he is worth being a statesman.

  123. V Martin says:

    1. Don Shaw says:

    I watched the house efforts last night, as already mentioned there were numerous positive ammendments proposed …… I listened to Waxman spout his Kool Aid support for The IPCC a….This is the Waxman position now officially rejected by the House of Representatives:….“Waxman: The U.S. contributes only $2.3 million to the IPCC. Our $2.3 million contribution leverages a global science assessment with global outreach and global technical input – a process we could not carry out alone and one that could come to a halt without U.S. support….The IPCC’s work has been lauded by the U.S. Academy of Sciences, and by the Interacademy Council, a body comprised of the national academies of the world. The organization won the Nobel Prize in 2007 for its assessment work.
    Ever notice how people refer to the Nobel Prizes as if they are some sort of gold standard? I truly believe that correction of the public’s perception of this crooked organization has to be a priority… since organizations such as the IPCC and Nobel are all are all in cahoots with each other in some way, once one crooked link is exposed it has to ripple over to all the other organization that it has ties to. I would have hoped that if anyone had any doubt that this is nothing but a bunch of leftist agenda promoting thugs, the illusion would have been shattered when Obama won a prize a scant couple of days or so into his presidency when he obviously hadn’t done anything… it was just the Nobel thugs saying to Americans “See… we appreciate that you finally elected someone who we like a whole lot better than that Bush fellow and remember this prize when the next election comes around.” This message needs to get to the masses.

  124. d says:

    I agree with roger knights i hope the GISS is next (please)

  125. galileonardo says:

    Walt Man:
    “IPCC funding make no visible dent in the economy of most countries.”

    Sheesh Walt, do you really believe that? Seriously. For folks who proclaim the ability to see so clearly into the future, that statement is most ludicrous. It’s either the typical “nothing to see here” deflection, or is spoken out of naivete. I’m thinking the former. A few folks touched upon the elephant in the room you’re missing:

    Rhoda R: “[T]he IPCC was being used to try to engineer a world government.” Rocky H also points out that the IPCC “uses that money to spread disinformation” among a few other such comments but they still do not capture the actual impacts on humanity, the “visible dent” we would all feel when their heels are upon our throats.

    To your point WALT, do you have any idea whatsoever what that “visible dent” would look like, especially upon the lives of the world’s poorest? Do you have a clue as to what the futures these lupine shepherds intend to dictate to us all will be like were we forced down the ugly path of the misnomered Sustainable Development agenda pimped by the IPCC/UNFCCC?

    Perhaps in your case it really is naivete because one simply has to read their written words to understand the impacts of their proudly transparent agenda. The butterfly effect applies to your petty penny argument. Continued funding at any level of these morally corrupt organizations increases the likelihood that we will see the wealth of the world essentially cut in half! By the words of the IPCC itself the “visible dent” would be about $200 trillion per year by 2100! Visible enough for you Walt?

    I’ve made the argument plenty before, but the only things sustained under their agenda are poverty and misery. Cut their funding immediately. They are parasites hellbent on incapacitating their hosts and then consuming the power they are so desperate to wield.

    Why do they deserve any pennies? As Johanna noted, yours is a silly argument. Would you “pitch in” to buy the weapon that would be cultured and grown and eventually used to execute you? I’ll send you a whole roll of pennies if you’re into such self-flagellation. I’m not, so I’ll hang onto a few rolls myself to clench within my fists as I personally wage war on this agenda. I’m with Willis on this one. Time to go for the aspen stake.

    I provided backup of my arguments last summer on The Air Vent using the IPCC’s figures and their vision is “unequivocally” an ugly, deadly one. In that case it was to counter Bart’s claims that the proposed CO2 mitigation schemes wouldn’t be “very disruptive to the global economy.” Give it a read Walt if you have the opportunity, then do some independent homework. Apply the scientific method to your own dogma. Your brain (and brethren) will thank you for it.

    http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/08/27/uns-ideal-global-government/

    Cheers!

  126. Larry in Texas says:

    Walt Man apparently hasn’t been here much to see how much damage the IPCC’s political hacks have been doing in their quest to try to rule the world. I say, millions for the defense of our liberties, not one cent for the IPCC! Lol!

  127. Kate says:

    Strangely, not a single British news organisation has reported this.

    No mention of it – anywhere.

  128. Dave (UK) says:

    Splendid news! It could only have been those in the ‘land of the free’ who would stand against the idiocy of the IPCC. Now, please do the same with the EU’s ETS. Oh, and while you’re at it, could you hack the UK’s carbon trading system too – the relevant UK ministers are too damned smug when they proclaim that the UK carbon register is among the most secure in the EU. The fixation with carbon in the country is ludicrous and downright scary.

  129. MickT says:

    God bless America. Many of us in the UK and around the world look to the US to lead us out of this obsession with CO2 and its apocolyptic fantasies

  130. Brian H says:

    About the GISS; it has been told to cancel all its “climate” programs, and concentrate exclusively on space. The Goddard Institute for Space Studies currently has zero space programs. It will have to totally re-tool and get back to its original mandate!

  131. Brian H says:

    PS: M. Mann is an employee of GISS.
    Another unemployable hits the streets! Yay!

    But I’m sure there’s a slot for him somewhere in the Soros global octopus. Worth watching to see where he ends up … if it’s not in jail for RICO violations!

  132. Pamela Gray says:

    I look forward to the day when the Senate turns to conservatism. While the God-thumpers among them churn my stomach and are no better than the liberal Gaia-thumpers, I only gag once or twice in response to the former, but am sick for days on end in response to the latter.

    However, lately, I am seeing a welcome separation of church and state amongst conservatives, as in lets all agree to stay out of our constituents’ bedrooms and marriage license contracts. Not so among liberals. They seem to have embraced pagan-state worship hook, line, and stinker, heralding the idea that each of us must be subjugated to the new god, Mother Earth. What does this subjugation mean? Tyranny is now the color of Democrats. And I used to be one.

  133. Keith Battye says:

    Pamela Gray says:
    February 20, 2011 at 7:00 am (Edit)

    I sincerely hope you are right Pamela. I don’t believe that religion has any place in government other than to create and guarantee the social space for religions to operate without bugging anybody not of their ilk.

    This rush by so many fundamentalists to take political power by using their pulpits to garner votes is painfully sick making, particularly in America which really is the Emerald City on the hill for so many democrats in the world. Is there a difference between one group of religious fundamentalists and another?

    Just on basic political fundamentals the Republicans knock the Democrats into a cocked hat.

  134. The sole purpose of the IPCC is to conjur scientific “projections” from global climate models based on dubious initial conditions as “proof” of manmade global warming to provide the UN – a collection of socialist and communist countries, monarchies, theocracies, and kleptocracies – the justification to cut the legs out from underneath the evil, capitalist, environmentally antagonistic United States.

  135. MickT says:
    February 20, 2011 at 4:48 am

    God bless America. Many of us in the UK and around the world look to the US to lead us out of this obsession with CO2 and its apocolyptic fantasies

    It may happen here but not for the reasons one would think. There are projected to be one million more house foreclosures this year. Ben Bernanke and co. have been printing money (and adding zeros to big bank’s accounts on top of the printing of money) for two years. The lag time from the printing of money that started two years ago till the time inflation hits from it is now starting. It will continue to go up because the printing of money is continuing to go up. Businesses that have been teetering on closing since the crash of two years ago will close as inflation grows and they lose customers because they are reining in spending. Unemployment will go up. The dollar is intentionally being debased. Soon recession will turn into depression.

    With that happening the defunding global warming will be just the beginning of cuts. And Democrats will eventually agree to those cuts, having no alternative. I’m afraid social security will even take a hit. There will be military cuts too. But the military is too big in America anyway. It never needed to grow as big as it is now.

    America never really got back on its feet after the depression of the 30’s until WWII started. Some are predicting only another WW will get America back on its feet now, maybe 10 years or so from now. I hope and pray that prediction is wrong.

  136. Colin in Mission BC says:
    walt man says:
    February 19, 2011 at 1:40 pm

    Amino Acids in Meteorites says: February 19, 2011 at 12:52 pm

    …If you’d like you can give me some of your money to spend in ways that will cause further spending of your money down the road which will lead to spending even more of your money. I’m sure you’d like that…

    I would be pleased to contribute $0.01 to a fund enabling you to research non-AGW. Send me your address and a prepaid envelope.

    Excellent, Walt. I’m so pleased to hear you enthusiastically take up Amino’s offer. In that same spirit of enthusiasm, I think it would be much more worthwhile if you could provide us with some manner of contact information, so those in these fora can liaise with you directly. We can’t be clogging up these threads with off topic issues. An email would probably suffice.

    That way, the not insignificant viewership of WUWT may individually contact you directly to exchange particulars for a $0.01 contribution.

    I know this won’t be an undue financial burden for you. After all, it’s only $0.01 each, right?

    Right, Walt?

    Walt.

    Walt?

    Now that I’ve made my point, perhaps now you can see the patent absurdity of your original point. Enough pennies can add up to a lot of money. It’s exactly your attitude that has justified the wasteful expenditure of tens (hundreds? more?) of billions of dollars over the years, segmented up into relatively smaller amounts. And, it’s exactly the reason every country in the Western world finds itself drowning in debt, with annual deficits as far as the eye can see. While it’s certainly not the total solution, it’s time to start cutting some of those damn, useless pennies.

  137. Colin in Mission BC says:

    Pamela Gray says:
    February 20, 2011 at 7:00 am

    I look forward to the day when the Senate turns to conservatism. While the God-thumpers among them churn my stomach and are no better than the liberal Gaia-thumpers…

    With due respect, Pamela, this kind of unnecessary and gratuitous shot at people of faith is in extremely poor taste (on a Sunday, no less). It falls in the same category of slurs as the “denier” meme out of the alarmist camp. It isn’t helpful, it will disengage people who would otherwise be your ally on the CAWG file, and as previously stated, reflects badly on you. I would suggest you consider your words more carefully in future.

  138. John from CA says:

    Galvanize says:
    February 19, 2011 at 8:48 am
    Blessings from across the pond!

    Is it up to the Senate to drive this nail home?

    ==========
    If the Senate leaves these amendments in the Bill, (which I doubt will go unchanged), it will then get ratified and will go to President Obama who has the power of veto. Its unlikely he would veto the Bill over the EPA, Climate Change, and IPCC issues (assuming they are still in the Bill). If he exercises a veto, Congress can override the veto and enact the legislation.

    A lot of this is posturing but the newly elected GOP Freshman have a public mandate from their States to Cut Waste. Polls indicate a majority of Republicans and Independents do not believe Climate Change is a serious issue worthy of funding. A majority of Democrats believe the reverse so it will be an interesting aspect of the process.

    My guess, Senate Democrats will abandon IPCC and Climate Change funding and pass these amendments. They realize, if the EPA is restricted by Congress, Congress will then need to debate and legislate the Climate Change and Carbon issues. They are likely to push this down the road in the hope they do better in the next election and can then pass the Bill they want in Warmer weather.

    As a US taxpayer, I don’t think its logic for the US to support corrupt UN agencies but it also isn’t logical to pull all funding for climate research. US funding for the IPCC is a drop in the bucket when compared to NASA, NOAA, DOE etc.

    I’d prefer to see the US, with the support of other countries, clip the UNFCCC’s wings, disband the IPCC in favor of an International Science group we can all trust, and broaden the climate research issues so we end up with some bang for all the bucks we’ve invested.

  139. John K. Sutherland says:

    Defund the EPA by 95%!

    Defund the UN by 100%!

  140. Brian H says:
    February 20, 2011 at 6:07 am

    About the GISS; it has been told to cancel all its “climate” programs, and concentrate exclusively on space. The Goddard Institute for Space Studies currently has zero space programs. It will have to totally re-tool and get back to its original mandate!
    —–
    I read about this today! in fact I enjoyed reading as a child that I could one day enjoy living in space, it’s so sad that America and the rest of the worlds amazing space programs and they have been replaced by “climate change” crap that are rolling back industry and it’s peoples to the stone age. to this day there is not even one live video feed from space. What? is space a secret now?
    —–

  141. DirkH says:

    TheTempestSpark says:
    February 20, 2011 at 3:28 pm
    “to this day there is not even one live video feed from space. ”

    http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/index.html

    Click on the tab to the right: “Live Space Station Video”

  142. rbateman says:

    In a shrewd move by the House GOP, they defunded some of the “Green Agenda” that irks a lot of thier constituents and independent conservatives alike. The Dem Senate and the President could look very bad if they directly block or veto based on keeping that part of their Agenda alive.
    The GOP has the high ground on this one. Thier twin points of pocketbooks and govt. spending is a killer app.

  143. Hu McCulloch says:

    Waxman, concluding: I don’t see how the gentleman from Missouri can say that this is a ‘nefarious’ group of people. After all, these are scientists who have won the Nobel Prize for their scientific acitivites.

    Mother Theresa, Jimmy Carter, the IPCC, and other winners of the Nobel Peace Prize may well have done so for their good intentions, but hardly for their Scientific Activities.

    Rep. Waxman is unfortunately full of Malarkey on this point.

  144. Physics Major says:

    The party’s over….

  145. Al Gored says:

    TheTempestSpark says:
    February 20, 2011 at 3:28 pm

    Brian H says:
    February 20, 2011 at 6:07 am

    About the GISS; it has been told to cancel all its “climate” programs, and concentrate exclusively on space. The Goddard Institute for Space Studies currently has zero space programs. It will have to totally re-tool and get back to its original mandate!
    —–
    I read about this today!

    ——————-

    Where? Link please if it is handy, with thanks in advance. That sound verrrry significant.

  146. Al Gored says:

    IPCC… International Pinnochios Chamber of Commerce.

  147. Brian H says:

    Al Gored says:
    February 21, 2011 at 3:27 pm

    IPCC… International Pinnochios Chamber of Commerce.

    Two corrections:
    IPCC… International Intergovernmental Pinnochios Pinocchios’ Chamber of Commerce.

    Otherwise, not tea bags! ;)

  148. Doctor Gee says:

    “So around 0.05% of cosmetic spend (a personal choice of course) is spent by the US on the IPCC.”

    But obviously it did not buy enough lipstick to make the IPCC pig look pretty.

  149. Not Given says:

    Its about time, cut the funding for this fake BS. Next CUT the NEA and keep going. You guys that think man is powerful enough to change the climate, keep dreaming you naive fool.

Comments are closed.