Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Salon has helpfully provided Americans with a list of Federal climate budget cuts which can be applied on day one of the new Trump administration.
Politicizing climate change: Donald Trump’s budget could cut climate funding for NASA, other federal departments
Donald Trump, in an effort to cut spending, is likely going to slash some important climate change programs
BRIAN KAHN AND BOBBY MAGILL, CLIMATE CENTRAL
The world is waiting to hear what President-elect Donald Trump has in mind for governing the U.S. Among the biggest questions is what will happen to the budget for climate and energy-related activities.
Though they’re a relatively small piece of a federal budget that is in excess of $1 trillion, how the administration deals with climate and energy will go a long ways toward determining the future of the planet.
“We don’t get a second chance,” Secretary of State John Kerry said last week at the United Nations climate talks in Morocco. “We have to get this right and we have to get it right now.”
…
Energy Department
2017 climate-related budget: $8.5 billion
…
Interior Department
2017 climate-related budget: $1.1 billion
…
State Department
2017 climate-related budget: $984 million
…
NASA
2017 climate-related budget: $1.9 billion
…
Environmental Protection Agency
2017 climate-related budget: $1.1 billion
…
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
2017 climate-related research and development: $190 million
…
I must say I’m impressed – that’s $13.5 billion of useless waste which can be cut immediately from the Federal Budget. $13.5 billion is an awful lot of road resurfacing and bridge repairs, or a very welcome new year bonus for hard pressed taxpaying Americans.
Good job guys – if you have any more tips Salon, please be sure to forward them to the Trump Administration.
Gosh, if I didn’t have the highest possible respect for the integrity and honesty of the AGW crowd I might almost be tempted to say that it looks like a pretty lucrative cause to be in. But all this couldn’t just be about the money, could it?
Before this degenerates into brainless guffawing, it may be worth realising that not ALL this money is going to AGW activists.
No, there is lot of unscientific “research” getting published which is nothing but activist propaganda. But let’s not forget that without DATA we would not have any knowledge of climate with which to have an informed, scientific sceptical point of view.
The whole of NASA does not need defunding because of a small group of political activists have been allowed to run GISS for the last three decades under administrations of both parties.
So let’s not throw the baby out with the bath water. Without continual measurement of climate the prevailing nonsense will unchallengeable.
No greg but it is going to climate activists. Not for much longer. Your church is about to suffer earthquake damage.
That non activist group you point to did not speak out! They are in the same gang. Defund the lot.
Thanks Greg You are making exactly the point I wanted.
However as Anthony showed in his surface data project, the data we’re getting – even in the US is appalling low quality, the people handling it have no recognised quality systems and no sane person would ever have set up such a pathetic mess if it had been properly thought about and contracted from the beginning.
Trump has a very short time to sort out the mess given it may need huge investment, a lot of political will and totally new organisations to be in place before the next change of administration …. otherwise, UNLESS THERE IS QUALITY DATA AND CREDIBLE ORGANISATIONS COMPILING THE METRICS IN PLACE BY THE NEXT ADMINISTRATION they could well come in and just re-instate the lot.
Stephen Richards
Keep your unfounded BS assumptions to yourself.
Yes, unfortunately the lack of courage and integrity in the wider scientific community will lead to a lot of collateral damage. They should have come out in clear opposition and didn’t . They circled the wagons, keep quiet and foolishly hoped it would all blow over and be forgotten.
Many within climatology have just been happy to profit from the funding bonanza and were prepared to tacitly support the alarmists because it was good for business and their careers.
This will undoubtedly lead to massive cut in funding that will doubtless end up damaging proper scientific initiatives. That is probably unavoidable at this stage.
What may be a more useful discussion here on WUWT is to draw up a list of things that should have funding PROTECTED and maintained going forwards.
ARGO floats are now providing fairly good coverage of OHC. The Arctic sea ice “canary” is feeling a lot better recently and needs to be followed as a continuous series of unbroken data. The satellites providing coverage of atmospheric temperatures need to be maintained as a continuous series.
Many of these datasets now have about 35y of data. That is roughly the warming part of the 60y natural “cycle”. What happens next is the most important information we need to assess the magnitude of natural variation which has been artificiality attributed to AGW.
A lot of AGW alarmists would probably be very happy for all this be defunded since the growing number of climate “canaries” seem to be refusing to fall off their perches. If we stop collecting data now they will just continue drawing straight line “trends” through everything and extrapolating out to 2100 or 2300 , etc.
We need to be very careful in calling everything related to climate as “wasted money”. The whole sceptical argument has been based on climate data.
Stupid, knee-jerk rants are going to get us nowhere.
I say, throw out the baby and then drive a stake through it for future generations to learn from. May well be that some of this scientific activity is for real, but the thing is it was used to pull this hoax on the world.
Greg – November 24, 2016 at 1:56 am
Uh, Greg, desperation to engage in conversations will more often than not cause one to “blurt out” silly arsed commentary that truly exacerbates their foolish mindset in the eyes of their audience.
Throwing out NASA’s climate-related budget would only amount to a wee bit of “bathwater”, to wit:
“We don’t get a second chance,”
…..said every conservative
They circled the wagons, keep quiet and foolishly hoped it would all blow over and be forgotten.
===
The word you’re looking for is complacent
Greg Your straw man is on fire! NASA is under the threat being required to perform as its original intent. Imagine the trauma NASA focusing on Deep Space instead of Muslim Participation Medals? When it comes to CO2 as a pollutant the baby is the bathwater. Your temple to Gaia is on fire!
Greg: I am in favor of throwing out the whole mess and starting over. The data we have is so “adjusted” that I would have failed any science class for attempting such a thing on a class lab. If we are to effectively study climate, there has to be uniform ways to collect data, the equipment available to analyze the data at a resolution that is more that just a SWAG, quality contol rules have to exist and be enforced and all politics taken out of the research. The precautionary principle needs to be ditched—it could get warmer, it could get colder. It also needs to be recognized that no matter how good the data, etc, unless there is 100% correlation, there will always be a lot of uncertainty in any predictions. “Chicken little” behavior must be reigned in and people need to understand that a trend line is not an actual opening to the future, but just a stastistical construct. The future will still be unknown. The best we can do with good data is identify things that may need changed or otherwise addressed.
Greg says “Without continual measurement of climate …”
If anyone can show me that the State Department was using billions of dollars to actually take measurements of anything in the climate system I’ll eat my hat!
Seriously, can you believe the massive amounts of money that was pouring into TOTALLY unrelated departments in the name of climateerism?
The whole of NASA does not need defunding because of a small group of political activists have been allowed to run GISS for the last three decades under administrations of both parties.
====
Greg, I agree with what you are saying overall….but there are other groups collecting temperature data…and even NASA admits those other data sets are more accurate
Problem is NASA’s data is so corrupted it’s beyond repair….it has been retroactively adjusted to the point it no longer represents reality and there’s no way to back up
people have forgotten this already…..
NASA Data Worse Than Climate-Gate Data, GISS Admits
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/30/nasa-data-worse-than-climate-gate-data-giss-admits/
Greg I am afraid you will find that many many skeptics are , in fact, anti science.
They will kill Landsat and every other satillite that observes our environment simply because NASA
runs it. They really dont care about data or science or fact.
WUWT is the only place you will find these people.
WUWT is the only place you will find these people….
Then why do you stalk them all over the internet??
This is the creep that happened: Nasa sends satellites up to space. The various functions and purposes on those satellites can belong to other agencies. Nasa thought they could get in on the money slop flowing to those other agencies so they duplicated what those agencies collect from satellites. The result is that we fund every Tom, Dick, and Jane Federal agency that is ALSO collecting climate data.
First, at the Federal level, Trump should look for and slash duplication of any research topic that has crept out of its original agency to other federal agencies.
Second, he should help pass a federal funding law that prevents funding of topic research that is already assigned to a single agency.
Third, any tax-payer federally funded research not directly related to national defense, should be forever tagged open access. That includes the data, methods, etc and any reports presented of the research.
Fourth, each agency should send a representative to an annual Grand Rounds sharing session so that Federal agencies are kept up to date on what each one is doing. Top secret activities excluded of course.
End Federal agency boundary creep and duplication. Redraw the boundaries, narrowly define all charters, and stop funding proposed activities outside each charter.
+ 100 A generally good idea. The other thing the US government should do is declassify parts of research done under CIA or NRO contracts. I saw a rumor that many of the problems with the Hubble telescope satellite were problems long ago solved with spy satellites.
@Steven Mosher
The whole “anti-science” meme is ridiculous. Get off your high horse. “Science” is much bigger than climate science. Climate science is an embarrassment to science. If you and your ilk stuck to trying to learn and understand the nature of things instead of always trying to link any and all phenomenon to CO2, and then publicly advocate for political solutions, then your “science” could possibly be taken seriously. We are anti-politicized science, not anti-science.
Satellites currently give the best actual data, because they sample huge volumes of the atmosphere and a larger fraction of it, while any surface sample is essentially a point measurement strongly affected by local conditions. Roy Spencer’s work at UAH, which I cite regularly to AGW true believers, comes from AMSU measuring instruments on (gasp) NASA’s AQUA satellites, among others.
It’s obviously true that NASA jumped into the climate business because that’s where the money was, but at least the data collection should continue. All that’s really necessary is to stop the suppression of grant money for honest skeptics analyzing it, and let the scientific method do its work. The human influence on climate is equally obviously not zero. I personally believe it is about 1/3 of the IPCC’s claims, but that’s still not trivial. We *do* need to reduce the error bars surrounding climate sensitivity estimates, and we can only do that with data.
Preferably not data forced to match the model instead of the other way around, of course…
Greg, NASA should be determining how to protect the earth from the next asteroid strike as well as taking us into space. I like the way Australia handled AGW, “The science is settled we will not fund AGW research.”
NASA should absolutely be taking temperature measurements of:
Mars
Jupiter
Saturn
Moons
Asteroids
As for earth, that is why we have NOAA.
“They really dont care about data or science or fact. ”
Mosh again trying to sell his lemon.
You are the one with no science degree, just a salesman’s job.
You wouldn’t know science or fact if it kicked up out the door.. which I hope it does very shortly !!
>¿<
Botwhopper, (no, that's not a typo) And Then There's Physics, Tamino's, Real Climate AND Real Science, Jo Nova, and even Climate Ect. Have a heaping helping of science illiterate cheerleaders of one or both camps.
And if you think the phenomenon is restricted to climate science you haven't been around nearly as much as you make out. Everything from quantum science to medicine is surrounded by cheerleaders who have no idea how anything works, yet think they are qualified to decide which theories are proven laws and which are pseudo science.
So don't shake your pom poms at me, Mosher. I stopped being impressed by your drive-by over a year ago.
“The whole sceptical argument has been based on climate data.”
This is why skeptics haven’t prevailed yet. The climate data is too distorted to be reliable and too fungible for arriving at conclusions. The alarmists will simply point to another data set if one doesn’t get the answer they want to see. For example, GISSTEMP instead of satellite measurements. Skeptics must focus on the physics which unambiguously precludes a climate sensitivity even as high as the lower limit claimed by the IPCC.
The existence of trends in anomalies tells us nothing about what’s causing that trend or if the anomalous trend is in the data, in the analysis or is a natural variation. The most useful property of anomaly analysis is to identify anomalous (bad) data and anomalous (bad) analysis. The prevailing assumption is that if we see a trend, it must be anthropogenic and only an understanding of the physics can turn this around.
Properly challenge the climate sensitivity with the laws of physics and this whole mess will be settled very quickly. Physics can’t be tweaked in order to validate expectations, nor is it fungible like data.
Start with an ideal BB whose sensitivity is exact, extend it to a BB surface with a gray body atmosphere whose sensitivity is also exact. Then challenge any warmist scientist to connect the dots between this model that accurately reflects the relationship between the input energy and surface temperature and whose sensitivity is unambiguously capped at about 0.3C per W/m^2 to the presumed sensitivity of between 0.4 and 1.2 C per W/m^2. I can absolutely guarantee that they will be unable to do this and will be forced to back off the claims of an absurdly high sensitivity.
Steven Mosher: “Greg I am afraid you will find that many many skeptics are , in fact, anti science.”
No Mosher, that’s you.
They are against “climate” science, the utterly unscientific, corrupt, smoke-and-mirrors fraud that pays your crust.
That isn’t anti-science at all, very much the opposite in fact.
So let’s not throw the baby out with the bath water.
===
I think this is mostly a bunch of hysterics over nothing.
Looks like NASA will continue to collect raw data….which they will hand over to another agency to process as it applies to “climate science”
NASA will no longer be responsible for adjusting/homogenizing/fudging the raw data.
NASA Earth Science
The purpose of NASA’s Earth science program is to develop a scientific understanding of Earth’s system and its response to natural or human-induced changes, ……………
https://science.nasa.gov/earth-science
Principals governing IPCC work….
.to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change,
“The whole sceptical argument has been based on climate data.”
This is why skeptics haven’t won yet. Focus on the physics not the data. The data is too unreliable for conclusions and too fungible. If the answer isn’t what they want to see, they use another data set (GISSTEMP instead of satellite data). The physics is completely deterministic and tells us in no uncertain terms that the sensitivity must be less than the lower limit claimed by the IPCC.
Looking for trends, or the absence of trends in the data presumes that CO2 is causing the trend. It tells us nothing about whether the anomalous trend is in the data, in the analysis or in the imagination of the data manipulator, much less what’s causing the trend.
How precious, Mosh.
(1) The Landsat program covers many areas. It didn’t originate as a climate-research tool, and that is not its purpose today.
(2) You love to show disdain for RSS on this board…but now you care about satellite data?
(3) You’re so in-tune with satellite data for climate research that you’ve been caught repeatedly referring to UAH as UHA.
Your drive-bys here offer nothing.
Greg
Sit down. Take a deep breath.
Nobody is proposing to defund the whole of NASA (about $20B); just the $2B for climate (which most foolish folks like myself assumed was being done by NOAA).
I am afraid you will find that many many skeptics are , in fact, anti science.
===============
nonsense. many many skeptics are pro science. what we are is “anti” is belief posing as science.
skepticism is at the very heart of science. it is fundamental to good science. it is fair to say that you cannot be a good scientists without being skeptical.
your failure to understand this most basic truth about science shows in the nonsensical postings you are famous for.
You left out CRN as another one that is very worthwhile to keep going. Aside from that I agree with your take on it. I think some others misread or didn’t understand your original statement.
My previous comment was to Greg.
Good list plus CRN.
I have to agree with Greg. Unless done carefully, Trump could go too far in draining the swamp. Basic scientific research is the best bargain we will ever get. The people and the infrastructure which collects raw data is absolutely critical to preserve, and indeed, improve. I do believe that was Greg’s point.
O M G. Our resident English major (Mosh) has the AUDACITY to criticize WUWT denizens regarding science. Why don’t you get the hell a science education, otherwise shut your pie-hole. We don’t want to listen to your gibberish..
It is about much more than just the money, $13.5B is only $44 / citizen / year. This is about about the sovereignty of the individual, the heart of American. exceptionalism. Three famous quotes are relevant here:
1. Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.’ (Eric Hoffer)
2. The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
(H.L. Mencken)
3. “Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”( Benjamin Franklin)
The CAGW machine must be completely disassembled, as it is an existential threat to the nation.
Agreed !
Nice to see Eric Hoffer quoted. Reading his work “The True Believer” proved extremely useful in understanding the kind of mindless ideologues you see in everyday life, from AGW cultists and Greens to other members of the Far Left Menagerie.
How much are the CAGW subsidies? How much are the immoral transfers from taxpayers to the “Green” boondoggles? When it comes to Money let’s go after the real fraud. The true costs of these government entities is in their useless and destructive regulations that they support and/or produce.
“The
CAGW machine must be completelydisassembledannihilated, as it is an existential threat tothe nationhumanity.” FTFY. Otherwise, comment is 100% spot on. And an enthusiastic second WRT The True Believer.Greg: ARGO floats are now providing fairly good coverage of OHC.
The ARGO project is a serious effort and they have an impressive number of devices. But in terms of the size of the oceans, the sampling is wholly inadequate. Willis has written about this several times. Here’s one: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/06/where-in-the-world-is-argo/
Indeed, it is totally inadequate. A while ago I calculated that each ARGO float, IIRC, covers about 4 million Olympic-sized swimming pools.
ARGO has also been corrupted by selectively removing float data without double blind experimental controls. As a result confirmation bias has crept into the dataset.
The problem is that the other Willis became convinced that the readings were too high, because they didn’t match the surface records. This is faulty reasoning, because it then ties the ARGO data to the surface data. If the surface data is wrong, these errors will then propagate into the ARGO data.
We have seen this problem time and time again. You cannot look at the data and then decide if it needs adjustment, because this will introduce subconscious bias into the results. The adjustments have to be done with double blind controls. Otherwise the end result is garbage. It matches what you believe to be true, not what is actually true.
Thanks.
The sooner someone – May, Trump, Le Pen, Grillo, whoever, gets to work on what Governments are a c t u a l l y paying taxpayers’ money for – the better.
Can you guess who is not holding their breath?
Auto.
Mosher,
Keep knocking those straw-men down if it makes you feel better. But don’t for a minute think that anybody believes your obvious lies. Nobody here has called for getting rid of LANDSAT or any of the other earth observing sats, and you know it. Stop projecting your fears onto us and go cry in your safe room.
Well, this could be a good start. Add to that all the Federal money going to Universities and Colleges to fund far-left climate programs. Add in Federal money going to cities to push climate related regulations. Let them live on donations from the Tom Steyers and George Soros of the world. I just wish we could also claw back a lot of wasted money spent based on lies and false data.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/obama-presses-ahead-with-plans-for-deep-emissions-cuts/
THE OBUMSTER DID NOT LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE. IMPEACH THE BASTARD.
Left out the Wind Production Tax Credit, another 12 or so billion annually.
People get paid to produce wind?
Yes, ppppppeoppppple get pppppppaid to ppppppproduce wind.
I produce wind daily. Quantity determined by diet.
Technically, it’s paid to produce hot air. 🙂
People pay to break wind!
Maybe shift some of that to gas turbine and scrubbed coal tax credits to ease any ripple effects in the utility industry.
That’ why I have thought long and hard about going back to farming
To produce onions to those who want to produce wind
and tomatoes for those who want to throw them at the evil onion eaters.
Okay seriously now, NASA needs to back to doing what Trump suggests. The only way we will advance in to space is not by looking down, it is by looking outwards.
I can’t help thinking that the total cost of the climate change industry in the USA is at least an order of magnitude higher. Much more to go.
“or a very welcome new year bonus for hard pressed taxpaying Americans.”
+++Eric Worrall
That money belongs in our pockets, and nowhere else.
Hear that? Those are the wheels falling off the gravy train.
I promised myself this year to not gloat… but they’re making it SO EASY.
First the crying, then the temper tantrums, then the street demonstrations, the assaults, then the climate people started “warning” Trump not to cut their budget, now they’re panicking that the entire planet is in jeopardy, and on it goes.
Too easy… I’m having a great November!
Me too. I’ve cried, screamed with laughter, slapped the wife’s thigh. Best year ever. Only one thing left to absolutely make my decade : the closure of the climate impacts unit at UKMO and closure of climate monitoring unit in France
We’ll see about Mrs May. Here in France, the election program of presidential candidate Francois Fillon [Conservative] states that he intends to do away with policies based on the “precautionary principle”.
Most voters will probably not understand this, but the “precautionary principle” is a concept from medicine high jacked by the Green blob and made into one core drivers of environmentalism and the CAGW/CACC hysteria.
We’ll have to see what he actually does in the event he gets elected next May. Meanwhile he has quietly pointed out the unfolding slow mo “energiewende” train wreck in Germany and the French Right in general has re-affirmed its strong commitment to France’s nuclear energy sector [75-80% of electricity here comes from nuclear].
What tickles my funny bone is how many Climate Faithful Blogs have recently announced that they will no longer allow ‘denier’ comments. The panic and paranoia have never been higher. ^¿^
schitzree, Oh, but don’t you know that they are so tolerant and “diverse” didn’t you know that? And it must be extremely frightening to live in an echo chamber. It can (and has) cause irreparable psychological damage. ( hearing voices saying the same things over and over again).
Don’t sell the fur before shooting the bear. The details where and how much to cut must be examined meticulously.
Sometimes it is easier and much more cost effective to bulldoze the entire structure and start again,rather than trying to salvage a rotting ,dilapidated wreck.
Plus there is less chance of contamination of the new work from the old structure.
Reminds me of a line from that old American series M.A.S.H. A visiting doctor sees the 4077th and states; “Personally, I’d call in an air strike and start from scratch!”. Loved that show…
Contamination is an issue here, but I think that “chopping off the heads” will do to get the rest back in line. A pause, as suggested by Jon, with the rest of the hands at half-pay might be best. Better to keep them on the payroll thus ensuring at least a minimum of loyalty.
I say, French revolutionize the works.
But it can be paused (the money will no doubt descend to the bottom of the ocean) immediately.
Then it will heat up and acidify!….LOL
Also, when the real problem is a lack of quality data – and a lack of quality organisations to create a reliable metric of global temperature – what you also need to do is have a realistic budget to create an alternative to the low grade dross we currently have.
And given that the new alternative quality system has to be in place before the end of Trump’s first term – there is precious little time to do it. Otherwise a new administration can just go back to using the fabricated data & employ the same charlatans again.
The US CRN exists. ARGO exists. The satellites exist. The rest of what exists is of unknown and highly suspect quality; and, has been “adjusted” until it is barely recognizable.
‘Though they’re a relatively small piece of a federal budget that is in excess of $1 trillion,’
This amount would solve the sanitation problems of most of Africa.
It will build up the decaying turnpikes and railroads of the US.
The wind subsidies referred to above, $12 billion, should be grandfathered and withdrawn from new players.
“that’s $13.5 billion”
I’d be using to boost the Military climate-related budget, they’re going to need it.
If there is such a thing (which I doubt), that is wasted money which should be cut as well. The military knows how to deal with weather.
It can be used to fund 27 Solyndras.
Just curious why the “SPACE” people have a climate budget that is an order of magnitude larger than the “ATMOSPHERIC” people.
My thought exactly
What I want to know is why the SPACE agency isn’t using the SPACE based measurements for their temperature sets, and instead just reprocess NOAA’s ground and ocean measurements.
Do we really need two government agencies playing ‘who can adjust the data the highest’?
schitzree: “What I want to know is why the SPACE agency isn’t using the SPACE based measurements for their temperature sets”
Good question!
What about Musk, Tesla, solar panels, wind turbines, federal research funding etc.? We must be into hundreds of billions during the next four years if Trump does not step in with a STOP sign.
Exactly. Stop all subsidies and the subsidy farmers like Musk and the subsidy farms marked with windmills and solar panels will cease to exist over night. The huge expense of setting up a grid to deal with infrequent variable power supplies can be saved too. No problems with individuals or companies attempting to ‘save’ money by personal use of solar or windpower, but no subsidies or ‘sales to the grid’ of surplus as that really means the other electricity consumers being forced to pay.
and halt Big Corn…
Big Corn can’t be stopped. ○¿●
http://52sundaydinners.com/recipes/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/048.jpg
renewable energy rivals the arms industry as the most expensive industry that is entirely supported by government pay cheques.
Not only rivalling the arms industry for expense but producing absolutely nothing of value.
The climate imperialists are showing their increasingly irrational reality rejecting anti-science extremism. Mostly it’s fun to watch. However when the opportunity costs of the time and money that has been squandered on their self righteous social mania is considered, it is not so humorous. From Obama down, this Administration has wasted precious resources fabricating and sustaining a crisis that only exists in their minds. And of course the rent seekers, opportunists and flat out con-artists are attracted to vulnerable people like our current President like sharks to a bleeding baby seal. Except this group of wounded fanatics not only self inflicted the wounds, they have dragged us into the mess they have created.
“From Obama down, this Administration has wasted precious resources fabricating and sustaining a crisis that only exists in their minds.”
Um, and in the minds of corporate America, virtually 100% of which believes it is real. And not, it’s not just companies that stand to make money off AGW, like GE with wind turbines. It’s Microsoft, and Walmart and Starbucks and Disney, and virtually all of the Fortune 1000.
I can agree, and Crony Capitalism has unavoidable consequences. All forms of government practice some form of capitalism. Look no further than the North American Hutterite Colony’s use of collective ownership. Their Constitutional foundation is irrevocable…..a non living applied application
law.
Um, Chris, virtually 100% of corporate America would be out of business if they used IPCC climate models for business planning. Real business people know CAGW is unfounded, but the ones making a profit off it are “in the bag” big time.
No, what 100% of corporate America believes in is PROFIT. And they know they can pander to the Climate Faithful without it usually costing them a dime. They sure know that publicly criticizing the believers will have detrimental effects on their business. Leftists never miss a chance to punish the unbelievers regardless of how little effect that unbelief might actually have on their plans.
Leftists always assume everyone agrees with them, because everyone knows that letting a leftist know you don’t agree is asking for a hiss fit. It’s one of the reasons they had the polls for the election so wrong. ~¿~
“Real” and “crisis” are two very different things.
And while you don’t see direct ties to “making money of AGW” among those companies, they sure as hell love to use it for marketing. Here’s a look at Walmart from a few years ago… http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/13/walmart-sustainability_n_4263032.html
It is in the interests of many corporations to support a “Carbon Tax”. It’s simple math. Markups are often based on cost. Industry does NOT pay a Carbon Tax. It is the end user, Joe Public. Often things like a Carbon Tax are not even a “flow through”. It gets put in the cost column and included in the base cost with a mark up added to satisfy the return on investment of the shareholders. A so called “flow through” of 10% gets a multiplier on it and ends up INCREASING corporate profits while the corporation can claim environmental sensitivity thus satisfying all sides of the debate.
$13.5 billion here, $13.5 billion there and soon you’ve got a substantial amount of money.
Don’t forget Obummer’s $500.000.000 to the UN
Yes sir. Non elected super oligarch ruling class – UN. The EU much the same. This body of good intentions has a very poor record giving out donated food and medicine without corruption of sorts. And the class of UN elites want a standing army/navy/air force.
The irony is all the arguments about ‘it isn’t warming’ use the data that now won’t be produced because it has been cut for political reasons.
Also, if another country argues that X or Y is happening – perhaps it slaps a tariff on Us exports as a result – then the US will say ‘but our data – doesn’t show anything’.
And if this is/was a fraud, you are just going to bury the evidence? Let it go?
I think there must be an impartial examination of the climate data before anything gets scrapped.
and when there is, you’ll find it is perfectly valid – and then what?
“Griff November 24, 2016 at 2:38 am
The irony is all the arguments about ‘it isn’t warming’…”
The irony is *YOU* miss the point. The earth is, and has been, warming since the last glaciation. The claim that, ~3% of the ~400ppm/v CO2 is *DRIVING* warming is tosh!
Griff, come now, you can’t seriously think any country will invite a trade war with the US.
Well, I wouldn’t want the US to cut entirely, but I don’t think it should fund the development of green energy in other countries or even its own country. However, what it should do is spend spend spend on actually recording data. Those, like me, who think this is extremely over hyped need data to show that, not models. Cutting the funding to data sources and also not creating new ones wouldn’t be helpful for that course, it would be detrimental.
Pardon, but the planet has been warming since the Little Ice Age, but cooling since the Holocene Optimum, at the end of the last major glaciation. It’s quite a bit cooler now, than during the H.O. That knowledge really puts such propaganda as “…hottest year ever recorded”, into perspective.
All agencies mentioned above, hammer the public relentlessly with such doublespeak and threads (ropes and cables) run throughout the federal bureaucracies. They all need “climate” de- funded and the purveyors of the lies need fired and in some cases, jailed.
All propagandists here such as Griff, need some figurative tar and feathers, so lay on. If it turns out they’re on a gov’t payroll and have been paid for their lies (and a study of their rhetoric comes close to proof,) well…
pimf… Mod can you please correct the “close italics”, please.”
Just enjoy the Holocene Inter-glacial whilst it lasts! After all, the last four Inter-glacials dating back 500,000 years were all warmer than today!
and when there is, you’ll find it is perfectly valid – and then what?
Griff, you have forgotten about this…
NASA Data Worse Than Climate-Gate Data, GISS Admits
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/30/nasa-data-worse-than-climate-gate-data-giss-admits/
Doubt that he forgot it. That link is inconvenient to the “truth” he peddles.
An “impartial examination of the climate data” can only be made after an impartial assembly of unaltered data has been made. Then let the data tell the story, not the other way around.
CAGW has been the greatest hoax in history.
Bob Hoye
Griff, you bozo….. NASA will still be into the space stuff.. you know like satellites etc.
You know, the ones they currently totally ignore for temperature?
Its just the climate data fabricators that will be having to find park benches…
….. so move over and give them space.
China,Russia and many others are skeptics. China is irritated because the Paris accord is a competitive advantage and it will now be gone.
If the data is looked at from the valid satellite data from 1975 to 2000 there was a case for serious concern that we had a problem, since then the models don’t stick to the data.
Further, unmolested data shows the “C” has fallen of the “CAGW” thus action needs to focus on efficiency and mitigation not economic inversion, and we need to watch this closely and we get better every year at recording the climate. Poorly constructed data adjustments are a symbol of the issues in science.
“and when there is, you’ll find it is perfectly valid”
More bollox.
How much are you paid to produce this guff, Grifter?
The irony is all the arguments about ‘it isn’t warming’ use the data that now won’t be produced….
English isn’t your first language is it?……the word you are looking for is justice
Interesting Griff!
Are you saying the examination of the climate data hasn’t been impartial up til now?
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
Likewise, if Donald Trump leaves the US without the necessary quality data network on climate so that a few con men can again take crap data and fiddle it to show whatever they want is happening with the climate to support their eco-politics then Trump will have failed.
At a rough estimate, a world wide network of high quality climate monitoring stations will cost of the order of $1billion. And the kind of people that network would employ would be world class instrumentation engineers – in other words, the type of people who are normal properly sceptical of the climate alarmist junk.
So, yes there may be $billions that can be easily cut. But some of it will be important research and In addition there needs to be proper investment in new quality data gathering to prevent this scam re-emerging in any future administration
For info, I’ve published my own proposals for the future:
A discussion proposal for the future
The key things are:
1. we invest in high quality data gathering
2. That we create a firewall between those gathering the data and those that create models. This is so that never again will we have a group compiling the data that feels it is easier to change the data to fit their models, than admit the models are wrong. The two areas must be completely separate.
3. Reforms to the IPCC – to remove all activists – to have paid scientists (so we get contribution by quality rather than interest/activism) and the remit is changed to monitoring climate and assessing the credibility of models (rather than as now activism on global and never once admitting how badly the models have done)
Scottish Sceptic, I read your proposal and I totally agree on all points. The US has made a good start in regard to climate monitoring with the deployment of the US Climate Reference Network (USCRN). We need a World CRN that includes ocean and polar monitors. Much easier said than done, but the USCRN should provide a good example for land climate monitoring stations worldwide.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/crn/
Scottish Sceptic,
“investment in new quality data gathering”
Have you not heard of satellites that agree with the unadjusted balloon data?
A few months back a comment was made on WUWT suggesting that a smallish network of satellites could be orbited to collect data of energy leaving the planet across all frequencies worldwide. This could be done for a small fraction of what government spends on climate baloney and once compared to well established data on incident energy any question of Earth’s energy balance and the pretence of model veracity would be ended forever. That would be a worthwhile task for NASA. The fact that they have not done this says everything about the political and unscientific ( antiscientific?) agenda in play.
Trump should put out the order to have Gavin Schmidt and Kevin Trenberth to dismantle the climate apparatus at GISS and NASA. That way they will be doing something useful while repaying some of the money they have stolen.
Give NOAA a raise and make them the designated climate researcher, cut the climate budget out of all other departments. Researching the climate is a valid and useful thing to do and seems to fit well with NOAA’s purpose. Spending money on attempted mitigation is premature and ineffective. No current climate-related effect is significant and harmful enough to spend money on adaptation.
I support an organization change or restructuring, to switch NASA earth data gathering activities to NOAA and a selected group of universities and consultants. This data is extremely valuable.
What needs to be reduced is the political science activities in all agencies. And that includes avoiding the creation of a counterpart which attacks all science activities if they happen to step on certain toes.
Therefore NOAA, in its role as as climate data and interpreter center, needs to make sure it funds satellites to continue observing the earth from space, the Argo buoy data needs to be continued, and there’s a need to have full data acquisition of items which will let us understand the carbon cycle and how it can evolve.
Fernando, I agree, but we should realize that there is no such thing as political science. That is an oxymoron.
Bubba Cow you may be wrong about that. Politics is the science of extracting the most blood – meaning money – from the turnips -meaning citizens – that voted for you.
…and nothing works like fear, to squeeze them turnips.
We need to put someone in place to undo the adjustments.
It might not be feasible but it would be nice to be able to force the people who did the adjustments to defend them or face firing with cause when they can’t. That way we won’t have to pay them anything when they leave.
Four years is not such a long time. I wonder how it might be possible to keep all these climate programs from ever coming back.
I predict that there will be a lot of shredding of paper and email servers. Someone should start a court case and get a court order mandating that all that stuff should be preserved. That way the shredders could face some serious consequences.
The key to stop them coming back are:
1. To ensure we have quality data – that cannot be tampered with – run by people committed to quality and integrity. In other words, do the job properly – and that means spending the money to do the job properly.
2. To take the moral high ground – to do the best climate research and show that the best climate research (in the hope that the best research will not support the climate paranoia we have now). Otherwise, we simply leave a vacuum in climate research which will be refilled by the activists as soon as Trump leaves office.
3. To change the attitude of academia – which probably means getting rid of schemes which promote the quantity of papers, and focus instead on quality.
4. Reform the IPCC
5. To cut funding to the Green groups and the eco-blob in general – which use this money to lobby to get themselves more money based on eco-scares.
6. To investigate and if necessary eliminate foreign government money going into the green-blob (in the case of oil countries – to prevent the US being self-dependent in oil, in the case of China – to create a public dislike of manufacturing through the proxy of CO2)
It is already illegal to delete / erase any government documents…
Lock Her UP
Unless your name is clinton, or you work for her
It would be great to see those cuts and many more from a Trump administration. I do hope that “The Donald” can pull it off. But let us not forget that there is so much wrong with the Empire that it will be hard to get to everything — at least in the depth that it will take. Plus, the man has not even been sworn in yet and that is not a complete certainty.
After the first Reagan administration some insider wrote a book that I think was called “Steering the Elephant” in which he recounted how difficult (impossible) it was to change D.C. due to entrenched bureaucrats and special interests. And the 80s was a time that the cultural Marxists had not yet taken over most of the State and the Media.
The election of Donald Trump is a great first step, but it is only a first step. It took generations to get to the police state we live in today, and it will take a long time to get back to any semblance of liberty.
May God help us in these times.
Exactly Mark….people have no comprehension how big the swamp really is..
++
Don’t worry. Other countries will supply the essential data. The US can then pride itself in saving money which can be spent on tax cuts for the wealthy.
The only ones affected are the Crony Capitalists that receive the AGW subsidies…Musk?
The top 1% will receive about half the benefits from tax cuts. In my books, thats not good economics, but I accept your view in applauding such strategies.
http://www.npr.org/2016/11/13/501739277/who-benefits-from-donald-trumps-tax-plan
Gareth
Get you head out of your assets.
Of course the top 1% get most of the tax cut benefits – they pay 40%+ of the taxes.
The bottom 50% of wage earners pay 0 taxes.
Other countries are free to spend their money however they want, and we can spend our freed-up money on infrastructure. Win-win.
Other countries will supply the essential data.
===
I know you know better…..oh the drama……like you think there’s only one in this country
Only one country has a network of high quality near-surface temperature measuring stations which incorporate multiple sensors and collect data which do not “need adjustment”.
Gareth you twerp,….. NASA will still be into the space stuff.. you know like satellites etc.
You know, the ones they currently totally ignore for temperature?
Its just the climate data fabricators that will be having to find park benches…
….. be nice and share your cardboard blankets with them.
O/T BBC lunchtime news announces that research scientists studying sea-ice in Antarctica have concluded that it’s about the same today as it was a hundred years ago! This is based on the recorded information by many explorers recorded at the time of their studies/expeditions. However, they say that Arctic sea-ice is variable because lots of Hooman beans live in the northeren hemisphere!!! Something’s afoot me thinks!!! Is it possible said “scientists” are seeking a “get-out-jail-free” card at some future point?
Well, the records of explorers, whalers, soviet Union, cold war subs and all other sources have been examined and they say that arctic sea ice is much, much less than it was 150 years ago.
This summary article links to the detailed research:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-piecing-together-arctic-sea-ice-history-1850
This concludes:
“there is no point in the past 150 years where sea ice extent is as small as it has been in recent years. Second, the rate of sea ice retreat in recent years is also unprecedented in the historical record. And, third, the natural fluctuations in sea ice over multiple decades are generally smaller than the year-to-year variability.2
so, if this sort of research is right about Antarctica, it must be right about the arctic too, eh?
and of course the arctic sea ice is at a record low for 150 years (at least) for this time of year at present and actually melted a bit in the last fortnight:
As always Griff you don’t mention the whole story. Of course the arctic ice was greater 150 years ago. That was the end of the little ice age. Why do you think it was called the “Little Ice Age”, maybe because it was cold? The fact that it is warmer now should not be a surprise.
Matt, Griff is using sources that follow Mann and his acolytes in making the LIA go away, so of course he ignores it 🙂
Melting Arctic sea ice precedes an Ice Age. http://harpers.org/archive/1958/09/the-coming-ice-age/
Time for Griff to do a stint in Siberia… he loves the cold, hates the warm….. right Griff ?!
Here is a challenge.
No heating all winter.. I dare you.
Every time I see a reference to NSIDC arctic sea ice as in the graph above which shows the minimum ice extent for 2016 of 4.1 million sqkm, I wonder how much politicking is involved. Danish Meteorological Institute also monitors sea ice and their calculation for minimum seas ice this year is about 5 million sqkm. With the pressure NASA has exerted on all the data, I am of the inclination to consider DMI monitoring as more accurate but maybe someone could show me otherwise.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
I think I’m really beginning to appreciate Griff.
He continually tries to make documented points, only to continually run into people a lot smarter than him, who in turn, easily (laughably easily?) rebutt whatever Griff was mumbling about.
To use language from Pat Frank’s lecture, I would class Griff as precise, but not accurate.
Salon only includes direct spending by the Federal Government, not the spending caused by green regulations by private industry.