Flashback, Michael Mann said this on October 5th, 2010:
Our efforts to communicate the science are opposed by a well-funded, highly organized disinformation effort that aims to confuse the public about the nature of our scientific understanding.
…
Scientists are massively out-funded and outmanned in this battle, and will lose if leading scientific institutions and organizations remain on the sidelines. I will discuss this dilemma, drawing upon my own experiences in the public arena of climate change.
Next time you get challenged on how much money is involved and whose side gets it, point out Mann is delusional by showing them this from 2009, Climate Money, a study by Joanne Nova revealing that the federal Government has a near-monopoly on climate science funding.
The starting point was in June 1988 – James Hansen’s address to Congress, where he was so sure of his science, he and Senator Tim Wirth turned off the air conditioning to make the room hotter.
Then show them this from the Daily Caller:
The Congressional Research Service estimates that since 2008 the federal government has spent nearly $70 billion on “climate change activities.”
Oklahoma Republican Sen. James Inhofe presented the new CRS report on the Senate Floor Thursday to make the point that the Obama administration has been focused on “green” defense projects to the detriment of the military.
The report revealed that from fiscal years 2008 through 2012 the federal government spent $68.4 billion to combat climate change. The Department of Defense also spent $4 billion of its budget, the report adds, on climate change and energy efficiency activities in that same time period.
Inhofe, the Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works and a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, argued that the expenditures are foolish at a time when the military is facing “devastating cuts.”
Video May 17, 2012 by JimInhofePressOffice
Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, and a Senior Member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, took to the Senate floor today to put the spotlight on the far-left global warming agenda that is being imposed on the Department of Defense by President Obama, which comes at the same time the Obama administration is forcing devastating cuts to the military budget.
Senator Inhofe announced that he will be introducing a number of amendments during next week’s markup of the Defense Authorization bill in the Senate Armed Services Committee that will stop President Obama’s expensive green agenda from taking effect in the military.
As part of that effort, Senator Inhofe is also releasing a document put together by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) which reveals that the federal government has spent $68.4 billion on global warming activities since 2008 — and that’s just a conservative estimate. Instead of focusing on funding our critical defense needs such as modernizing our military’s fleet of ships, aircraft and ground vehicles, the Obama administration’s priority is to force agencies to spend billions on its war on affordable energy; this is further depleting an already stretched military budget and putting our troops at risk.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Wow, I am green with envy! 🙂
Accuse the other side of exactly the things you are doing before they get to do it 1st. It’s probably one of Saul Allinsky’s rules. The sad part is that It often works.
One minor comment: Tim Wirth “turned off the air conditioning to make the room hotter”. They didn’t – according to the video they opened the windows to give the same effect. Not the greenest of solutions…
It is actually amazing that climate skeptics by using the internet and basically crowd sourcing of information have had such an impact on the debate….despite the funding of the climate change industrial complex by the various governments around the world.
Obama’s green agenda will leave the U.S bankrupt and defenseless.
I think the words, “Follow the money” apply here.
I would be interesting to see the comparison of how much government money is being spent on any research that might show the opposite of the CO2 AGW theory.
Apples and Oranges.
One side is spending nothing on satellites, research, ice-cores, scientists or high end computer systems for modeling.. It only spends on PR aimed at the popular media rather than the science community.
Its cheap to post articles and print essays rejecting the statements by every national science advisory group that climate change/AGW is a significant problem. Rather more expensive to back up such claims.
[Correction: All taxpayers pay for spending on satellites, ice cores, etc. ~dbs, mod.]
Here is the wake up call for all Americans, well past time the media recognised this, and did its duty to bring this rort to a halt. Trenberth can call travesty because his heat is missing. just like the data they hid and distorted. But what is really missing is the integrity of science mired in a trough of money that corruptly bought many Climate scientists body and soul.
Thank goodness that we have had a few outstanding sceptical scientists that stood against the tide of corrupt influences, fought to unravel the web of deception and hypocracy. Time to reform science under new leaders.
The deception started in America, was refined in the UK , corruptly spread to serve the agenda of those who want to destroy the great economies of the world. It will take decades to undo the vandalism to our world temperature historical records and restore respect to climate science..
Not to mention the vast waste of monies driven by the ego and agenda of those who stood to profit by this misadventure. That money could have done so much more if properly and wisely used.
Time to metaphorically tip them out of their self promoted false temples.
You go Senator. Wonder how many flap jackets and extra armor could have been bought for our sons and daughter riding along the streets of Iraq and Afghanistan? How many soldiers came back in a box that could have come back with a fighting chance to live on this side of the war? Those who approved this shameful use of funds owe an apology (that will NEVER be sincere enough) to every mother, father, child and friend of those who’s lives were sacrificed on the immoral AGW Gaia alter. Starting with the president. Actually a fitting apology from him would be for him to lose the next election. And I voted for him the first go-around.
izen, are you referring to the PR site, realclimate?
Heroic Inhofe stands alone as always. A few other Repooflicans pretended to be interested during the 2010 election, but they’ve fallen back into their default slavish loyalty to China and Wall Street.
Izen: When you only spend money on research to PROVE AGW, all that is considered to be money spent to promote AGW.
And if you want to cut to the chase, look at the IPCC’s mandate.
It isn’t just the amount. By setting up the IPCC through the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) Maurice Strong put all the control in the hands of national weather agency bureaucrats. Most of the government money went to research that was proving the IPCC hypothesis rather than falsifying it, as Popper pointed out is required for an effective scientific method.
In Canada government research funding for science or the social sciences and humanities are done through arms-length from government agencies. However, climate research funding was all done through Environment Canada (EC) and only to those who agreed with IPCC preudo-science. A former senior EC bureaucrat, who chaired establishment of IPCC, established a climate funding agency with EC money and became its chair immediately after leaving government.
Politicians are still, for the most part, bamboozled and wrong about the science; Inhofe is an exception. Look at the itemized beliefs of these three Canadian political leaders.
“If there is one thing on which all federal parties and all national political leaders are agreed, it is that they “believe the science” on climate change. They believe that the earth is warming, they believe its effects are on balance malign, and they believe it is caused by human activity. As such they believe it can and should be mitigated by human action, namely by reducing greenhouse gas emissions.”
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/05/11/andrew-coyne-national-leaders-unanimous-in-their-inaction-on-climate-change/,
Fortunately, they have the bad economy as an excuse to cut funding and control the bureaucrats, without losing their green credentials. It’s the right action for the wrong reason.
That would be flak jacket. Flap jackets are filled with pancakes, not kevlar. They are quite useful when caught behind enemy lines ’cause you can eat them when you get hungry. Kevlar, not so much.
izen says:
May 19, 2012 at 7:45 am
Its cheap to post articles and print essays rejecting the statements by every national science advisory group that climate change/AGW is a significant problem. Rather more expensive to back up such claims.
You say AGW is a significant problem? And you say it is expensive to back up the claim that it it not a significant problem? That is no problem! Here is proof that warming has stopped between 10 years and 7 months to 15 years and 6 months ago, depending on your source.
2012 in perspective so far
With the UAH anomaly for April at 0.295, the average for the first third of the year is (-0.09 -0.112 + 0.108 + 0.295)/4 = 0.05025. If the average stayed this way for the rest of the year, its ranking would be 12th. This compares with the anomaly in 2011 at 0.153 to rank it 9th for that year.
With the RSS anomaly for April at 0.333, the average for the first third of the year is (-0.058 -0.12 + 0.074 + 0.333)/4 = 0.05725. If the average stayed this way for the rest of the year, its ranking would be 21st. This compares with the anomaly in 2011 at 0.147 to rank it 12th for that year.
With the GISS anomaly for April at 0.56, the average for the first third of the year is (0.34 + 0.39 + 0.46 + 0.56)/4 = 0.4375. If the average stayed this way for the rest of the year, its ranking would be 13th. This compares with the anomaly in 2011 at 0.514 to rank it 9th for that year.
With the Hadcrut3 anomaly for March at 0.305, the average for the first three months of the year is 0.239. If the average stayed this way for the rest of the year, its ranking would be 18th. This compares with the anomaly in 2011 at 0.34 to rank it 12th for that year.
With the sea surface anomaly for March at 0.242, the average for the first three months of the year is 0.225. If the average stayed this way for the rest of the year, its ranking would be 14th. This compares with the anomaly in 2011 at 0.273 to rank it 12th for that year.
So on all five of the above data sets, for their latest anomaly average, the 2012 average is colder than their 2011 average value.
On all data sets, the different times for a slope that is flat for all practical purposes range from 10 years and 7 months to 15 years and 6 months. Following is the longest period of time (above10 years) where each of the data sets is more or less flat. (For any positive slope, the exponent is no larger than 10^-5, except UAH which was 0.00055 per year so it could be questioned whether it can be considered to be flat.)
1. RSS: since November 1996 or 15 years, 6 months (goes to April)
2. HadCrut3: since January 1997 or 15 years, 3months (goes to March)
3. GISS: since March 2001 or 11 years, 2 months (goes to April)
4. UAH: since October 2001 or 10 years, 7 months (goes to April)
5. Combination of the above 4: since October 2000 or 11 years, 6 months (goes to March)
6. Sea surface temperatures: since January 1997 or 15 years, 3 months (goes to March)
7. Hadcrut4: since December 2000 or 11 years, 5 months (goes to April using GISS. See below.)
See the graph below to show it all for #1 to #6.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2001.16/trend/plot/rss/from:1996.83/trend/plot/wti/from:2000.75/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997/trend/plot/uah/from:2001.75/trend
For #7: Hadcrut4 only goes to December 2010 so what I did was get the slope of GISS from December 2000 to the end of December 2010. Then I got the slope of GISS from December 2000 to the present. The DIFFERENCE in slope was that the slope was 0.005 lower for the total period. The positive slope for Hadcrut4 was 0.004 from December 2000. So IF Hadcrut4 were totally up to date, and IF it then were to trend like GISS, I conclude it would show no slope for at least 11 years and 5 months going back to December 2000. (By the way, doing the same thing with Hadcrut3 gives the same end result, but GISS comes out much sooner each month.) See:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000/to/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000.9/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2000/plot/gistemp/from:2000.9/to:2011/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2000.9/trend
Actually, my first attempt at pancakes many decades ago could have been used as a substitute for kevlar.
ah yes- the same CRC that states:
Virtually all scientists conclude that most of the recent warming is due to human activities, driven by emissions of such greenhouse gases (GHG) as carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and other air pollutants, as well as land use changes…..models project GHG-driven change to have important impacts on regional economies, human safety and health, and ecosystems, with the potential for surprising and abrupt shifts.
And wow really? The “poor military”. 68.4 billion on climate in over 4 years- which is 1/10th of the military budget- not including the military related costs that can more then double actual expenditures.
To even better put it in context, $6BB a year buys you a new carrier not counting the NRE of new classes like the Gerald Ford or their air wing. We presently have 11 commissioned carriers. That means that over the last 4 years we could have completely recapitalized the core of our surface navy with this money. If that doesn’t make you sick, I’m not sure what will.
But back to my condemnation, cooking aside. I had “kids” over there fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. These kids were not my biological kids but once I learned to cook real good, they all came to my house after school when they were young. Some of them even started calling me “Mom”. After graduation they joined the military.
What they experienced over there, at a time when flak jackets were not part of the uniform and their vehicles were made out of stuff a stink bomb could shred, have left them struggling with the nightmare of body parts flying out of what used to be a transport vehicle. When you have seen what was left of a body blown east, west, north and south, only to find out the government was spending money on twisty lightbulbs instead of armor, you might have an ax to grind. Thankfully, my boys all came back at least physically intact, no thanks to what they and their friends needed to survive Hell.
This report by the honorable Senator has me dander up and red hair flaming!!!!!
Would anything really have been any different with McCain?
Archived-Articles: An open letter from The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley to Senator John McCain about Climate Science and Policy
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/an_open_letter_from_the_viscou_1.html
Tires, steel and now solar panels. Trade wars in the past have actually cost jobs.
http://articles.businessinsider.com/keyword/tariffs/recent/3
And Romney just regurgitates talking points from Donald Trump. Best to never trash your trade agreements that protect your businesses in the first place.
trbixler says:
May 19, 2012 at 7:41 am
Obama’s green agenda will leave the U.S bankrupt and defenseless.
The US debt to revenue ratio, how much it owes versus tax revenues, is quickly reaching the point where the US makes Greece and Ireland look good in comparison. The more you owe, the more the interest on the debt eats up tax revenues, further increasing the debt.
http://www.businessinsider.com/dept-to-gdp-revenue-2010-8
Notice the dramatic jump from $20 million per year under Reagan to $1 billion per year under Big Bush for ‘climate endangerment findings’. This is a bi-partican rip off where earmarked ‘green’ tax dollars get laundered to be campaign contributions. This has never been about honest scientific inquiry, but ONLY about slave science providing the Carbon shackles and chains for the, admitted by Big Bush, “New World Order”….and that ‘order’ is all-powerful, unelected, one-world feudal government.
Relevant information on Senator Wirth from:
http://www.ucdenver.edu/academics/colleges/SPA/BuechnerInstitute/Centers/WirthChair/About/Pages/SenatorTimothyWirth.aspx
“Timothy E. Wirth is the President of the United Nations Foundation and Better World Fund. These organizations were founded in 1998 through a major financial commitment from R.E. Turner to support and strengthen the work of the United Nations. Wirth is married to Wren Wirth, the President of the Winslow Foundation.”
R.E. Turner is Ted Turner, husband of Jane Fonda
Redemocrats are a dime a dozen. McCain being one of them, and Romney. So no, it would not have been better. My voting dilemma is that Obama is hoping for a split vote among those of us entirely disenfranchised by the current president as we vote for the other side, literally in desparation. If Romney wants my vote, he will have to put Ron Paul on his ticket. Otherwise, no deal.
@- Werner Brozek says:
“You say AGW is a significant problem? And you say it is expensive to back up the claim that it it not a significant problem? That is no problem! Here is proof that warming has stopped between 10 years and 7 months to 15 years and 6 months ago, depending on your source.”
I admire the effort you have taken to show that there is little evidence of a warming trend in the last 10-15 years of some temperature indices. Personally I keep an eye of the seal level, ocean heat content and SSts as they represent over 80% of the energy that will shape the climate.
But there is another reason I find your numbers unpersuasive.
I am a little older than ten years old, Its 40 years since I was a teenager and I do remember those decades. I would be much more sanguine about the possible future trends in the climate if every decade since I was 10 years old had not been warmer than the last. However cold 2012 may be, and wherever in the rankings it may end up (ENSO will have a big influence), it will STILL be warmer than all my teenage years, all the years of my twenties, all the decade when I was in my thirties and all of my forties…
Do you think there is ANY prospect I will see a winter as cold as the years of my youth again ?