Zeroed out: NOAA Climate Service funding axed in budget CR

From the House Appropriations Committee:  Summary — Final Fiscal Year 2011 Continuing Resolution:  PDF

Page 2:  Commerce, Justice, Science:  “This section of the CR also prohibits funding for: the establishment of a Climate Service at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Here is the dream website of the NOAA Climate Service.

Now, NOAA can get back to essential services like severe weather warnings, hurricane hunting, and fisheries. 

Hopefully people won’t die, as Bill Hopkins, the NWS Employees Organization vice president predicted last month (WUWT post link) if the House’s original budget cuts were implemented:

Bill Hopkins, vice president of the NWS Employees Organization, said the public may be in real danger a House bill is passed that would slash The National Weather Service’s budget by $126 million.”It could potentially lead to a loss of lives, not necessarily in San Antonio, but it could in other parts of the county,” Hopkins said.Local NWS offices would likely deal with rolling closures and furloughs, leaving the Corpus Christi NWS office to take over issuing warnings for the San Antonio area.”Not only will they be watching your area, but they will also be watching their area, and there will be no increase in personnel to do this,” Hopkins said.The national NWS office said President Obama has opposed to such harsh cuts. Hopkins said the cuts would significantly affect those along the Gulf Coast.”The National Hurricane Center would be reduced to 32 hours a week,” Hopkins said.There would also be far fewer hurricane hunter flights, which are often vital parts of hurricane forecasts.According to Hopkins, large amounts of weather data would be lost.”Can you imagine flying into an airport and they lose all their surface data? There’s really drastic impacts in this cut,” Hopkins said.

About these ads

60 thoughts on “Zeroed out: NOAA Climate Service funding axed in budget CR

  1. I’ll be happy if they’re forced to stick with observing and reporting climate, and not trying to influence policy or public opinion. Happier yet if they aren’t allowed to try and scare people.

  2. Climate change observations will continue under the NOAA, they just won’t call it the “Climate Service.” It’s quite important that they continue this research. These institutions are not going to roll over to a group of anti-science politicians, I’m sorry.

  3. And what about Goddard Institute of Space Studies? Weren’t they to be told to get out of climate and back into space? That would entail a complete restaffing (starting with Hansen) since they have no one left who knows space as anything more than a sink for OLW!

  4. “Hopkins said.There would also be far fewer hurricane hunter flights, which are …”

    Does not flying produce CO2 there by increasing the GHE they want to avoid? So isn’t this a good thing? Or is this Bizarro World?

  5. In private business, to do something more efficiently and effectively translates to saving money, reducing costs, improving quality, etc. In government, it ususally translates to “needing more money.”

  6. Anthony,

    If the NOAA weather warning services are cut, I would imagine there would be more business opportunity for you. Strange and morbid as that may sound, I actually hope that happens. I think technology has evolved enough where distributed data collection could be used to generate warning services. Kind of like an every-mans weather-service, everyone contributes, and everyone makes use. The internet would of course be a major conduit of information.

  7. If this really does impact NOAA’s basic services, it would be a bad thing. … but it might be a good learning experience. The people are tired of the scam, and anyone who participates in the scam can now expect to suffer just a bit.

    Do the climatology, do the timatology.

  8. …what was that sound..I thought I just heard? It sounded very much like a gravy train hitting the buffers. Now that is a sound I could get used to hearing. Its merely a start on the long road to cutting the flood of money being directed at climate ‘science’ at the very least but damn good to hear for all that.

  9. If they’re short on personnel, maybe they should ask everyone to stop blogging on RC during work hours.

  10. As someone who has lived in San Antonio for 16 out of the past 22 years I can honestly say that most of the time San Antonio and the rest of South Texas does not need any weather forecasters. (The forcastYes, on about 20 days or so a year we had interesting weather, but the rest of the time it is boring and predictable… I think that there is some fat that can be cut. Look at the current forecast, how many guys do you need to say…

    “Today it will be sort of cloudy with a high around 80.”
    “Tonight mostly cloudy with a low around 60.”
    “Tomorrow it will be partly of cloudy with a high around 81.”
    “Wednesday night will be mostly cloudy with a low around 60.”
    “Thursday will be partly sunny with a high around 83.”
    “Thursday night will be mostly cloudy with a low around 62.”

    It goes on and on and on until the next front or dry-line forms or there is a tropical system. You can see those coming for days, only the govt pays for people to sit on their hands and wait for something to happen.

  11. These institutions are not going to roll over to a group of anti-science politicians

    They seem quite quick to roll over for a group of pseudo-science and non-science politicians and activists.

  12. Brian says:
    April 12, 2011 at 11:48 am
    Climate change observations will continue under the NOAA, they just won’t call it the “Climate Service.” It’s quite important that they continue this research. These institutions are not going to roll over to a group of anti-science politicians, I’m sorry.

    One wonders how one makes ‘climate change observations‘ ? Surely, an observation can only be of weather?

    Perhaps these politicians are actually pro-science and want to keep a separation between the ‘climate church’ and State.

  13. Brian says:
    April 12, 2011 at 11:48 am

    “Climate change observations will continue under the NOAA, they just won’t call it the “Climate Service.” It’s quite important that they continue this research. These institutions are not going to roll over to a group of anti-science politicians, I’m sorry.”

    Explain why, exactly, one wants known fraudsters doing important research?

    =======================
    “Brian H says:
    April 12, 2011 at 11:52 am

    And what about Goddard Institute of Space Studies? Weren’t they to be told to get out of climate and back into space? That would entail a complete restaffing (starting with Hansen) since they have no one left who knows space as anything more than a sink for OLW!”

    And this would be a bad thing, how, exactly?

  14. “Here is the dream website of the NOAA Climate Service”

    Hahaha….you mean, wet dream….as in it rained on their parade, we threw water on the idea, we quit carrying their water, or perhaps more appropriately, the well ran dry.

    This news just made my day.

  15. Make the staffing cuts mostly in administrative personnel and re-think your business model to change some aspects to contract services delivered via private contractors.

    Joe and Joe at Weatherbell would be happy to make you some sort of offer that could cut out a chunk of inefficient public servant with pension plan liabilities and replace it with a tailor-made package, and make a tidy profit in the process.

    Other outfits would also bid on any possible contract, competition is good for the taxpayer, and contracts can be written with penalty clauses for non-performance to agreed standards of service.

    Just saying, “there’s more than one way to skin a cat”.

  16. mitchel44 says:
    April 12, 2011 at 12:52 pm

    As far as I am concerned, Joe & Joe @ Weatherbell could replace a large portion of NOAA and do a better job for far less, specifically the front end of it (forecast).

  17. page 4. “climate change funding bill-wide is cut by $49 million (-13%)”, well at least its something.

  18. While I think that Nasa has a role in remote sensing, it would be about time for Hansen to take a walk too.

  19. Let’s get real….
    thirty flights and the cone of death is from Rio to New York….
    …..ten flights, and the cone of death is from Rio to New York

    Flying into a hurricane more often does not help one bit…………
    ==================================================
    “Now, NOAA can get back to essential services like severe weather warnings, hurricane hunting, and fisheries.”
    ===================================================
    I’ve worked for one of those for over 30 years…..
    ….it’s an even bigger mess and just as crooked

  20. Maybe they can still fund the climate service by turning it into a non-profit organization and selling merchandise like PBS…you know, the “I Luv Climate Science” tote bag, an autographed copy of an “An Inconvenient Truth,” the Sheryl Crow individual sheet toilet paper dispenser…

  21. Matthew says:
    April 12, 2011 at 12:35 pm

    “Explain why, exactly, one wants known fraudsters doing important research?”

    Because it is highly important research, critical to the survival of mankind. This research must be done at all cost. With out it, we would miss important findings, such as the discovery of Piltdown Man.

  22. Dear Bill Hopkins,
    You have been wrong so many times on the gloom and doom predictions of global warming. How can we trust you now, on your gloom and doom prediction of budget cutting?

    This is what happens when you lose your credibility, nobody can trust you or believe you anymore.

  23. NOAA Climate Service funding axed in budget CR

    Good news comes in many small ways, but this is a big $126 million one.

    What are all those poor ex-highly paid modelers and climate manipulators going to do now, mybe they can go to work for Google?

  24. Yahoo, some sanity arriving in politics at last. Shame its not in the UK. To try and force the pace in the UK there’s a suggested petition titled:
    “Repeal the climate change act and stop green energy subsidies to save our economy and democracy”, located at http://38degrees.uservoice.com/forums/78585-campaign-suggestions/suggestions/1708173-repeal-the-climate-change-act-and-stop-green-energ?ref=title

    It has the following preamble:
    Climate change happens naturally, The empirical (real) evidence shows that global temperatures have flattened for the last ten years and there is no “carbon” signature in the temperature record.

    Manmade global warming is the rallying cry of anti-democratic forces operating via the UN to establish world government for the enrichment of the political and moneyed classes to the detriment of ordinary people.

    The taxes involved to pay subsidies for green energy will increase energy poverty and severely harm the economic prosperity of the nation and will benefit the likes of David Cameron’s father in law and Nick Clegg’s wife who have substantial financial interests in green energy

    I urge all to vote for this petition so that it will get selected, if only for the fact that most petitions suggested on the 38 degrees website are very left leaning. Should be fun!

  25. This is just the start.
    While layoffs are sure to come, more budget cuts are going to be
    necessary to get some of the key climate scientists to start whistle-blowing.
    Finally.

  26. Any government organization that has promoted AGW should have their budgets slashed until they no longer have the personnel who promoted AGW.

    I am thinking NASA, EPA, Teachers union, NPR, NOAA, etc. etc.

    There needs to be accountability in the government, and that looks like low hanging fruit to me.

  27. Hopefully, this is just a start. There are a plethora of governmental agencies at the “climate change” trough.

    Steve did a post called,
    Icons Of The Gravy Train. While I don’t think it is all inclusive, it gives us an idea how exactly how much we’re spending to promote the alarmism. $126 million is just a start, almost merely symbolic.

  28. Well very little actual cutting is going to happen. The vast majority of the “cuts” are simply deletions from previous CRs.

    I think there may actually be $2B of real actual cuts. That’s just beer money. The plan is to spend 40 Trillions over the next decade; that’s Trillions with a T; not Billions with a B.

  29. @Brian

    I don’t care if they don’t roll over. I don’t care what they do. I just want their funding stopped. I’m tired of paying for it with money borrowed from China!

  30. Genghis says:
    April 12, 2011 at 2:51 pm

    There needs to be accountability in the government, and that looks like low hanging fruit to me.

    Any chance that the Khan side of the family could be available to carry out the "harvesting"?

  31. From watching the budget fights, I came to a few very good conclusions:

    Any part of the Government that has money to fund commercials to convince the Gov. into giving them more money has too much money.
    Any part of the Government that has to resort to scare tactics just to get more money probably does not need it.
    The NOAA is weather, not climate…were we not all told that these are two different things from the same people? Just do your jobs and don’t take on extra ones…just my two cents.

  32. Hu McCulloch says:
    April 12, 2011 at 1:58 pm

    Let Congress slash away at NCDC until it becomes directly responsible/accoutable for USHCN again. CDIAC is most likely a bureaucratic growth layer, nonessential. Defund it.

  33. benfromMO says:
    April 12, 2011 at 3:26 pm

    From watching the budget fights, I came to a few very good conclusions:

    Any part of the Government that has money to fund commercials to convince the Gov. into giving them more money has too much money.
    Any part of the Government that has to resort to scare tactics just to get more money probably does not need it.
    The NOAA is weather, not climate…were we not all told that these are two different things from the same people? Just do your jobs and don’t take on extra ones…just my two cents.
    ================================================

    Worth repeating. In a time that was seemingly a lifetime ago, I used to work for the government. One of the ideas that was drilled into my mind, stated, and then reinforced, and then reinforced again, was ……. “First, do no harm.”

    This is an idea that is impossible to entirely attain, but it is a worthwhile aspiration. These people, the individuals who work for us, the idea has never crossed their mind.

  34. @George E. Smith

    “Well now if NASA can get back to Space , it would be great too.”

    OMG! But when did they start hiring qualified engineers again?

  35. Weather forecasting — what an amazing idea! Would be nice if we had some of that here in Buffalo.

    Rain called for, for Sunday & Monday, with thunderstorms as well on Monday. Results? Nada .. zilch .. zero … not even a rumble in the distance. More insulting yet was the timeliness of their high wind advisory on Monday — an hour or so after the wind tore through, knocking down some yard tools and the (full) trash can (which sets against the side of the house, normally protected from the full force of the wind).

    So great, get the heck out of the climate business and get to work on those weather forecasting skills, at least to the point where you’re at least in the ballpark and can issue advisories before an event happens..

    [Full disclosure - I admit that there were a few showers racing through the region on Monday, but if they say 100% chance of rain, I expect to see something. Tomorrow's story is that there's a 50% chance of rain, so if I run some quick errands, I'll probably get soaked to the skin.]

  36. Those cuts are a weak start. Funding should be more drammatically reduced. Not just the global warming alarmism… Cut the core NASA funding and be done.

    What really is the point of NASA now? There are private companies sending stuff to space with plans to send humans as well… And they’re doing it for much lower costs than does NASA. So, if the job can be done by private corporations, why do we need the bloated, ineffective beast that NASA has become?

    Bruce

  37. “Hopkins said.There would also be far fewer hurricane hunter flights…”
    And when states cut there budget the teachers will get the axe;
    And when the Feds cut the budget they will close Yosemite, (even though it generates money)

    It never ends, there is no excess in admistration in the schools, there is no extra money in yet another new math book, etc, etc. Bottom line, if management can not effectively liminate least necessary services, get new management.

  38. Living on the “Space Coast” as I do, one meets people every day who have lost or are about to lose their jobs at the Kennedy Space Center. Why are these folks being let go while useless twits such as James Hansen still have jobs?

  39. What would happen if NOAA was defunded in its entirety? Do they provide the radar and info to the news stations? If not, it seems like this function could be handled more cheaply (free to taxpayers) by local stations.

  40. James H says:
    April 12, 2011 at 7:28 pm

    “What would happen if NOAA was defunded in its entirety?”

    I don’t think anyone is calling for defunding NOAA, but this is a compelling question for specific programs within NOAA. Some basic questions that should be asked include:

    (1) What products are generated (e.g. long term forecasts, ENSO analyses, etc)?
    (2) Are these products essential?
    (3) Are specific products redundant? (in many cases – YES)
    (4) Can some costs be shared with other groups?
    (5) Can the programs be made more efficient?

    Unfortunately, many of our government-sponsored CAGW science groups (like GISS) exist mainly to generate “peer-reviewed” research papers, which are subsequently hyped in press releases (as highlighted here at WUWT on a regular basis). This research helps further the careers of the scientists themselves, but is (in my opinion) of little use to the public.

  41. #
    #
    Brian says:
    April 12, 2011 at 11:48 am

    Climate change observations will continue under the NOAA, they just won’t call it the “Climate Service.” It’s quite important that they continue this research. These institutions are not going to roll over to a group of anti-science politicians, I’m sorry.
    ###

    I’m sorry but you lefty criminals who have high-jacked science to serve an anti-human Marxist master are the enemy of science, not those smart enough to be on to the scam. Science is a tool for evaluating truth, not for feeding a propaganda machine with convoluted lies. If you had any intelligence you would know this but any cognitive capability you may have been born with has been destroyed by that indoctrination program that passes for education.

  42. As the new house majority maketh stride in defunding the climate change money pit, George Soros will be pulling in the reigns of his puppet president and senate majority he purchased. Support the continued house majority in expunging waste and those that propagate fear mongering for the social engineering agenda. NOAA needs to stick its charter.

  43. The Global Warming gravy train SHOULD come to an end, if the science is settled and not debatable anymore. What’s the point of continuing to fund and research a known fact? The model theorists win! Game over! Pack it up and go home!

  44. Brian

    Since when does a public official disobey the law in a democracy? These are not anti-science politicians – they are the representatives of “we the people,” whether or not you or I disagree with them.

    If you want a dictatorship, say so; but you’d better hope you don’t get what you want.
    You never know, I might be the dictator!!

  45. Brian;

    To a ‘crat, a pol is just a convenient source of funding. Which the ‘crat tries to bypass, and/or lock-in his appropriation, wherever possible.

    As a source of guidance, direction, and goal-setting, all ‘crats have your arrogant attitude towards the merely ephemeral elected.

  46. Many times we see leaked images of upcoming products on the web, but in most cases these images turn out to be created using Photoshop or other image editing software. Now you can judege whether an image is taken by a digital camera or is edited in Photoshop by Photoshopped Image Killer.

Comments are closed.