New bill to limit IPCC funding from USA

Luetkemeyer Seeks to Prohibit Federal Funding for Job-Killing UN Climate Change Initiatives 

WASHINGTON, D.C. _ Following last night’s State of the Union Address in which the president pledged to implement a job-killing climate change agenda, U.S. Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (MO-3) today introduced legislation to prohibit the United States from contributing taxpayer dollars to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

Luetkemeyer said the IPCC has received a great deal of criticism over the last several years, particularly when emails publicly released from a university in England showed that leading global scientists intentionally manipulated climate data and suppressed legitimate arguments in peer-reviewed journals. Researchers were asked to delete and destroy emails so that a small number of scientists could continue to advance their environmental agenda. Since that time, more than 700 acclaimed scientists have challenged claims made by IPCC. Luetkemeyer added that UNFCCC uses IPCC suggestions and data to implement its job-killing agenda.

“The American people should not have to foot the bill for an international organization that is fraught with waste, engaged in dubious science, and is promoting an agenda that will destroy jobs and drive up the cost of energy in the United States,” Luetkemeyer said. “Unfortunately, the president appears to be ready to fund these groups, revive harmful policies like cap and trade, and further empower out of control federal regulators at a time when we should be doing everything possible to cut wasteful spending, reduce regulatory red tape, and promote economic growth.”

Under the Obama administration, IPCC and UNFCCC have received an average of $10.25 million annually from U.S. taxpayers and the president’s FY13 budget included a $13 million request. Comparatively, the Bush administration was averaging roughly $5.7 million in annual contributions before reports of gross scientific misconduct. Since then, the Obama administration has nearly doubled U.S. contributions to IPCC and UNFCCC.

Luetkemeyer added that his bill would not only prohibit the aforementioned contributions as reported by federal agencies, but would also apply to in-kind contributions that often go unreported.  

Luetkemeyer introduced legislation in the 111th and 112th Congresses to prohibit funding for the IPCC, but this year added UNFCCC to the legislation because the group uses IPCC’s suggestions and data to implement its job-killing agenda.

###

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

36 Responses to New bill to limit IPCC funding from USA

  1. If only it could be done!! [*?-

    Alfred

  2. Ed_B says:

    Its about time!

  3. apachewhoknows says:

    Call Texas Congressman Ralp Hall, Chair of House Committee on Science and demand he co-sponsor this bill.

    Call House Speaker also demand he support this bill.

    In the end this CO2 thing is all politics, none of it is real science.

    The fraud masters will just find a new way to tax and spend once the CO2 fraud is dead and buried.

  4. philjourdan says:

    Just a pipe dream. It is nice to see some in DC still think – but the majority still do not.

  5. Mike Mangan says:

    The science is settled. Why waste all of this money when we could spend it on The Children? Support this bill. Do It For the Children™.

  6. Bruce Cobb says:

    Good to see, but a snowball in hell has a greater chance. Even those Congresscritters who might be sympathetic to it would need to grow a spine first.

  7. ALVAN says:

    Good idea. However, there are too many climate ignorant politicians in the Senate for this to see the light of day at the moment.

  8. Walt The Physicist says:

    Great! Since this money would have been waisted anyway, le’t use it to pay for “important” domestic research, like this one: Water management in the Florida Everglades – National Science Foundation grant $300,514 for five years awarded to Jose Fuentes and MMann both profs of meteorology at Penn State. Add to that greatly innovative geoengineering “research” by “Hero Scientist of 2008″ Ken Caldeira. Also, may be, Bill Nye deservs some $ to study the effect of AGW on meteor impact…

  9. Tom J says:

    I believe it was H. L. Mencken who said that democracy was the theory that the people knew what they wanted and deserved to get it, “good and hard”. After the president’s SOTU speech it appears that significant further testing will be conducted in an attempt to prove that theory. It’d be nice if this bill could falsify it but the theory has wings and Barack’s wings are not feathery things that are easily clipped. No, they’re papery, semi-transparent, veiny things that beat very rapidly and multiply quickly. Good luck clipping them.

  10. John Whitman says:

    Dear U.S. Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (MO-3),

    I respect you for repeatedly trying. Persist please.

    John

  11. pokerguy says:

    Whether it can pass or not (of course it can’t), this is wonderful news. We’re fighting back,and in that fight raising awareness. Wonderful news.

  12. S. Meyer says:

    A “job-killing .. agenda”?? This is such a misused, propaganda-laden word, it makes my hair stand on end! 

    This is a science blog. So where are the data that show that President Obama’s climate change agenda, taken as a whole, would kill jobs? 

    Here is my read on what he said:

    Quote from the speech:
    “The good news is, we can make meaningful progress on this issue while driving strong economic growth. I urge this Congress to pursue a bipartisan, market-based solution to climate change, like the one John McCain and Joe Lieberman worked on together a few years ago. But if Congress won’t act soon to protect future generations, I will. I will direct my Cabinet to come up with executive actions we can take, now and in the future, to reduce pollution, prepare our communities for the consequences of climate change, and speed the transition to more sustainable sources of energy.”

    He proposes cap and trade, but also all but said this would not happen. I would consider this lip-service – last time they tried that, there were not even enough democratic votes in the Senate for it.

    He announces executive actions. I read this as meaning: invest in infrastructure and research, provide incentives for renewables, provide more stringent standards for emissions and for energy efficiency. A few sentences later he talks about more drilling on federal grounds. These plans, as a whole, may well add jobs.

    Even for cap and trade, the one plan I think is most likely to have a negative impact on jobs, the situation is far from clear. Germany has implemented cap and trade in 2005 and has seen a steady drop of unemployment.
    http://www.tradingeconomics.com/germany/unemployment-rate

  13. Luther Wu says:

    philjourdan says:
    February 13, 2013 at 7:41 am

    Just a pipe dream. It is nice to see some in DC still think – but the majority still do not.
    ___________________
    Keep shining a light on ‘em and eventually, enough people will get a clue to make the difference.

  14. A.D. Everard says:

    Sometimes all it needs is one voice at the right place and the right time. People don’t believe the scam anymore, but many don’t want to be the first to say so or try to lead the way out. Blaine Luetkemeyer is standing up and I sincerely hope that those around him see that this is the time to back change. And I don’t mean climate change. I liked his words very much, he got the salient points into one very neat package. Good luck from Australia.

  15. David L. says:

    Nice to dream, but logic is a minority these days. This administration is in full blown emotional knee-jerk reaction mode especially when it suits them to tax and spend. The last stimulus package proved that they don’t even care what they spend on…just spend, spend, spend…..drive up the deficit, then use the massive deficit to argue for more tax revenue. Works like a charm every time!

  16. philjourdan says:

    S. Meyer says:
    February 13, 2013 at 9:32 am

    A “job-killing .. agenda”?? This is such a misused, propaganda-laden word, it makes my hair stand on end!

    This is a science blog. So where are the data that show that President Obama’s climate change agenda, taken as a whole, would kill jobs?

    The “science” is called Economics. The rule is simple. You increase the cost of an item, you decrease the demand. It is an inviolate rule in economics that is only surpassed by the law of Supply and Demand.

    Ergo, when Obama increases cost on labor, there will be less demand for it – more unemployment.

  17. pottereaton says:

    Good for Blaine Luetkemeyer. But I fear it’s merely a symbolic gesture.

    What Republicans in Washington have to do is propose a national commission of competent people to conduct a comprehensive, engineering-grade study to evaluate the state of climate science and the purported dangers posed by AGW and climate change. The panel needs to be comprised of physicists, climate scientist, meteorologists, statisticians, aeronautical engineers, astrophysicists, and mathematicians. Steve McIntyre has been saying this for a long time. I would further recommend that he be appointed to the panel, since there is not anyone more qualified to assess the current state of climate science than he. ………theduke

  18. pottereaton says:

    S. Meyer. He wants to kill the Keystone pipeline. That will kill jobs. It doesn’t take data to understand that. And that is merely the tip of the proverbial iceberg.

    The rest of what you write is essentially a figleaf to cover a very high level of corruption and abuse of tax payers in order to fund his political and environmental allies in exchange for campaign contributions. It’s corruption masquerading as protective measures against threats that either do not exist, or are being vastly exaggerated. It’s a money and power grab.

    Eventually, when you have no liberties left, don’t come running and crying to WUWT.

  19. pyeatte says:

    Even if you could get the official funding deleted, they would just use money from the various slush funds hidden away in various budgets.

  20. David L. says:

    philjourdan says: February 13, 2013 at 10:23 am

    …”Ergo, when Obama increases cost on labor, there will be less demand for it – more unemployment.”

    What’s the problem? Just raise taxes on the ones that are working and extend unemployment benefits indefinitely to those not working. /sarc

  21. S. Meyer says:

    Response to pottereaton and philjourdan

    Re Keystone pipeline
    A) How is the keystone pipeline part of a climate change agenda?
    B) I did not hear the president mention this pipeline under climate change agenda
    C) According to a Cornell study, this pipeline will create very few jobs and make energy prices higher for us (its main purpose is to facilitate export of oil from Canada to places other than the USA).

    http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/on-energy/2011/12/16/the-benefits-and-drawbacks-of-the-keystone-xl-pipeline

    Re economics:
    “The “science” is called Economics. The rule is simple. You increase the cost of an item, you decrease the demand. It is an inviolate rule in economics that is only surpassed by the law of Supply and Demand.”

    That simple?  Thanks. The CBO made an estimate on how cap and trade would affect jobs and came up with more or less no impact.

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/oct/05/energycitizensorg/claims-cap-and-trade-will-cause-job-losses/

    Now, I am not for cap and trade, because it amounts to a regressive tax, but I would want to wait for the other items on the president’s agenda to be fleshed out and evaluated for their impact on jobs and the economy, before jumping to the “job-killing” rhetoric. 

  22. S. Meyer says:

    @pottereaton says:
    February 13, 2013 at 10:54 am

    “What Republicans in Washington have to do is propose a national commission of competent people to conduct a comprehensive, engineering-grade study to evaluate the state of climate science and the purported dangers posed by AGW and climate change. The panel needs to be comprised of physicists, climate scientist, meteorologists, statisticians, aeronautical engineers, astrophysicists, and mathematicians. Steve McIntyre has been saying this for a long time. I would further recommend that he be appointed to the panel, since there is not anyone more qualified to assess the current state of climate science than he.”

    Agree. And maybe use this type of approach to reform the IPCC (although I am afraid that they may be a lost cause).

  23. philjourdan says:

    @David L. – what do you think they are already doing?

  24. philjourdan says:

    @ S. Meyer says: February 13, 2013 at 12:27 pm

    “That simple? Thanks. The CBO made an estimate on how cap and trade would affect jobs and came up with more or less no impact.”

    2 things.
    #1 – Poltifact is not a good source. Google the Biggest lie of 2012. You will find that what they call a lie is indeed documented fact.
    #2 – ” would have a minor effect on employment in the long-run. ” (from your link).
    A – Minor effect is not quantified, but it is not “no effect”, so you are wrong
    B – We are all dead in the long run. In other words, the CBO is not really saying anything.

    Study economics, not talking points. It helps with gaining knowledge.

  25. S. Meyer says:

    @Philjourdan
    “#1 – Poltifact is not a good source.”

    I don’t always agree with Politifact. See the following link about global warming, if you really want to get annoyed at them.

    http://www.politifact.com/ohio/statements/2011/aug/31/kevin-coughlin/gop-senate-candidate-kevin-coughlin-says-theres-no/

    But: they do quote their sources, which means, you can check for yourself. 

    The CBO is the closest I know to be authoritative. I would not consider the assessments of the CBO “talking points”.  Can you suggest a better source? 

    My point here is: there is a big difference between a “minor effect” (which I worded somewhat sloppily as “more or less no impact”) and “a job-killing agenda”.

  26. Lew Skannen says:

    S. Meyer says: – “He announces executive actions. I read this as meaning: invest in infrastructure and research, provide incentives for renewables, provide more stringent standards for emissions and for energy efficiency.”

    The infrastructure he usually invests in is high profile white elephant to boost temporary construction jobs rather than anything mundane but useful. It rarely gets a business case justification.

    “Incentives for renewables” means subsidizig the inefficient and thereby removing incentive for it to become viable.

    “provide more stringent standards for emissions ”
    May be beneficial or may just be waste but in either case is an increased burden and not a boost for jobs.

    “and for energy efficiency” This comes about through technological improvement rather than subsidizing failure.

    Money wisely invested on cost/benefit basis produces wealth and jobs. Money squanderd does the opposite.

  27. Matthew R Epp P.E. says:

    S Meyer – How many jobs have been lost because of the EPA regulations regarding coal fired power plants?
    If even one, that is one too many caused by needless regulation based on an agenda designed to control the people and limit our prosperity and freedom. The amount of reduction in ” harmful” particulates is negligible. the cost to install the new equipment makes the electricity non competitive so they close the plant or switch to natural gas either way screwing the coal miner. I am all for capitalism and free enterprise, if the company CHOSE to switch because it made good market and economic sense then so be it.
    Please take off the rose colored prism through which you view this president and his agenda.

  28. johnmarshall says:

    Great idea. Cut all their funding as far as I am concerned. Total waste of space.

  29. philjourdan says:

    @S. Meyer – I gave you a warning, not a command. I blew away your rebuttal with the rest of the response. The CBO does not agree with you. “minor” and “long term” do not equate with 0.

    And you will not find any reputable Economist that argues price increases do not affect demand.

  30. S. Meyer says:

    @ Lew Skannen says:
    February 13, 2013 at 6:07 pm

    “The infrastructure he usually invests in is high profile white elephant”…

    Really? I looked at “recovery.gov” which lists a very large number of all kinds of construction projects.  Most very mundane, I saw an estimate that the part of the stimulus which was invested in construction created ca 1,000,000 jobs. References below.  

    60607http://www.frbsf.org/publications/economics/papers/2010/wp10-17bk.pdf

    http://www.recovery.gov/espsearch/Pages/advanced.aspx?data=recipientAwardsList&State=OR

    ——–

    Incentives for renewables” means subsidizig the inefficient and thereby removing incentive for it to become viable.”

    Or this can mean jump-starting a process. Renewables (as any new technology) become less expensive through economy of scale. This effect is called a “learning curve”. 
    ———

    “provide more stringent standards for emissions ”
    May be beneficial or may just be waste but in either case is an increased burden and not a boost for jobs.”

    Or could save lives.. More about this later.
    ———–

    “and for energy efficiency” This comes about through technological improvement rather than subsidizing failure.”

    As an example:
    How about giving home owners low interest loans for better insulation of their houses?   
    Better insulation -> less energy use-> reduced demand for energy -> lower energy prices -> better economy -> more jobs. 
    ———
    “Money wisely invested on cost/benefit basis produces wealth and jobs. Money squanderd does the opposite.”

    Finally something we can agree on…

  31. S. Meyer says:

    @ Matthew R Epp P.E. says:
    February 13, 2013 at 7:06 pm
    “S Meyer – How many jobs have been lost because of the EPA regulations regarding coal fired power plants?
    If even one, that is one too many caused by needless regulation based on an agenda designed to control the people and limit our prosperity and freedom. The amount of reduction in ” harmful” particulates is negligible. the cost to install the new equipment makes the electricity non competitive so they close the plant or switch to natural gas either way screwing the coal miner. I am all for capitalism and free enterprise, if the company CHOSE to switch because it made good market and economic sense then so be it.
    Please take off the rose colored prism through which you view this president and his agenda.”

    The harmfully effects of particulate matter (and other pollutants) in coal burning emissions have been known for many years. If you had argued that CO2 is not a pollutant I’d agree, but coal emissions are not harmless at all. You’d rather lose a life than a job? Please provide a link about your statement that EPA  regulations lead only to a negligible reduction.   

    One of many references. Scholar google ” coal and pollution” to see for yourself.

    http://igitur-archive.library.uu.nl/med/2005-1214-200002/IVR 3A1 Brunekreef et al (2002).pdf

  32. S. Meyer says:

    @ philjourdan says:
    February 14, 2013 at 4:41 am
    “@S. Meyer – I gave you a warning, not a command. I blew away your rebuttal with the rest of the response. The CBO does not agree with you. “minor” and “long term” do not equate with 0.

    And you will not find any reputable Economist that argues price increases do not affect demand.”
    ——-
    [snip . . this is trolling . . mod]

  33. S. Meyer says:

    Mods: trolling? How so?

  34. S. Meyer says:

    Well, I should have known better. I honestly thought that there could be a real dialogue between liberals and the more conservative people on this site. My objective in this thread was simply to point out that labels such as “a job-killing agenda” are needlessly inflammatory and should not be used if they cannot be backed up by good data.  For that, I have been told to “study economics”, and “not to come back and cry”. I have been accused of “using talking-points”, and of “wearing rose-colored prisms”.  And then, the coup de grace, I am accused of trolling (and I still have no clue what in my deleted comment would qualify as trolling). Not really a pleasant experience. Not helpful.
    Sorry. 

Comments are closed.