House votes to defund IPCC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

more here


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

House votes to block EPA’s global warming power


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

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

full story here



newest oldest most voted
Notify of

God bless America!!!!!

We’ve been chatting about this in the UK for a few hours now. The general feeling is that this is a symbolic act, and that there is more to come before the final shape will be seen.
I think the IPCC is an albatross for governments now. The writing is on the wall. It’ll be interesting to see how other governments react. If IPCC was costing the U.S. $15m I wonder what their total budget is?


I’m not sure why this was posted? While the news is interesting, it is odd that the version posted is the one which is apparently alarmist – at least the numerous mentions of denialist and what not would seem to indicate that.
Certainly there are no ‘good’ sides to this particular issue, but nonetheless the shoe being on the other foot should equally be presented from the normal WUWT point of view.
REPLY: it’s news, get over it. – Anthony

D Caldwell

Elections have consequences….

Douglas DC

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

G. Karst

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


Blessings from across the pond!
Is it up to the Senate to drive this nail home?

Roger Knights

Next up, GISS.


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


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

Roger Longstaff

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

Paul C

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

Bruce Cobb

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


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

Brian H

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


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

Steve Keohane

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

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


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


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

walt man

2007 US contributions were $2M
To 2008 US contributions TOTALLED $34M over 21 years
“In 2009 the cosmetics industry in the U.S. is expected to reach $60.37 billion, which represents a decline of about 1.2% from 2008.”
So around 0.05% of cosmetic spend (a personal choice of course) is spent by the US on the IPCC.
How much of an Albatross (tallbloke) is £100M over 21 years? When spread out over 50 contributors?? It is 1/1000 of the money spent on cosmetics in US in one year.

Steven Hoffer

How does that old saying go….
those on the right feel that those on the left are misguided.
those on the left feel that those on the right are evil.
and the more misguided they get, the more apparently evil I am.


This is a simple and expedient way to send the message to large, corrupt organizations…like the IPCC and the EPA.
It’s also a way of balancing the effective defunding of scientists who don’t hold hands with the “consensus”, and, well, that’s the way it works.
Decry foul play by republicans if you will, but it’s really the result of the system working, albeit slowly, lumbering, and inefficiently. The democrats had their day, and they’ve bungled it. No doubt the republicans will bungle as well, but only by keeping the pressure on will we have true science exposed to the light of day.
We must have the freedom to judge for ourselves if Michael Mann is right, or if Richard Lindzen is. The IPCC denies me that right, so I deny them my money.


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

don penman

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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


I watched most of the proceedings last night and into the early morning. In addition to the IPCC vote, one of the most interesting aspects of this session was the number of times the EPA’s and other agencies were cited as being out of control, using questionable data, and their exceeding authority. By my recollection, every vote brought up concerning the EPA resulted in further cuts and restrictions in the EPA budget. Frankly I lost count at the number of times this happened. It was a very hearting experience.
As a side note, NOAA was also brought to heel by Chairman Hall via an amendment 495 “to prohibit the use of funds to implement, establish, or create a NOAA Climate Service…” The vote passed 233 to 187.
I slept very well last night (err..this morning).
Regards, Kforestcat

Joe Public

Do UK taxpayers contribute to IPCC?

John Peter

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

In the full article it quotes Waxman, the guy they claim understands the issue as saying, “After all, these are scientists who have won the Nobel Prize for their scientific acitivites.”
If they won for “scientific activities” then they would’ve won a science-based Nobel – not the pinnacle “attaboy” of the left known as the Nobel Peace Prize.


Cairo comes to the U.S.
The winds of change are blowing…


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


@walt man says:
February 19, 2011 at 9:27 am
What has cosmetic’s got to do with the UN? and it’s funding.
hey look over there ->

walt man,
I resent having even one dime of my tax money go to the completely corrupt UN or to its advocacy organ, the IPCC. The world’s poor are never helped by the UN. Tax money administered by the UN is used to line the pockets of its corrupt officials, and whatever is left over never goes to those in need. Instead, it goes into the pockets of local strongmen, warlords, foreign government officials, and advocacy groups that toady up to the UN. Show us a country where the poor and destitute have ever been helped by the UN. Bangladesh? Palestine? Congo? Egypt? Haiti? U.S. tax money supposedly intended for the world’s poor is always intercepted by UN thieves and their cronies. And when the poor riot, the media instantly assigns blame to corporations, or bankers, or anyone except the true perp: the UN, which has stolen the funds intended for the poor of the world.
The UN/IPCC itself is totally anti-science. Where are its skeptical scientists? A skeptical scientist is the only honest kind of scientist — so of course the IPCC has no skeptics in any position of authority. Alarmist UN/IPCC scientists preach doom and disaster for one reason: to increase the funding and power of the UN. Amazingly, there are lots of useful idiots who unquestioningly swallow the UN’s story line. Every time I see someone appeal to the authority of an IPCC Assessment Report I think to myself: There’s another fool at a keyboard. If the IPCC had valid science, its members would not be afraid to step up and debate their position. But like scoundrels everywhere, they hide out instead.
It is the unstated policy of the UN to theive every last dollar from the U.S. The organization is rotten to the core and is staffed by the world’s most corrupt reprobates. Its blue-helmeted soldiers steal supplies intended for those in need and rape the men and women they are sent to protect, without any fear of prosecution. The countries that most egregiously violate human rights are placed on the UN’s Human Rights Commission. WTF??
It is hard to imagine a more corrupt, dishonest and self-serving bunch of kleptocrats. Sending any of our tax money to people who hate us and use the money to advance anti-American goals is madness.
The world would be much better off if each individual country negotiated with allies and adversaires on a one-to-one basis. The notion that the UN gives countries a forum to discuss differences falsely assumes that countries would not have the same discussions without the UN. The sooner this corrupt organization is defunded the better for taxpayers everywhere. And especially for the world’s poorest and most destitute.


Luetkemeyer’s attack on the UN panel is described here (MS Word file):
Of course, there are plenty of other gullible governments who will keep the cash flowing.

Theo Goodwin

walt man says:
February 19, 2011 at 9:27 am
“So around 0.05% of cosmetic spend (a personal choice of course) is spent by the US on the IPCC. How much of an Albatross (tallbloke) is £100M over 21 years? When spread out over 50 contributors?? It is 1/1000 of the money spent on cosmetics in US in one year.”
But the cosmetics industry actually produces something of value, happy babes. By contrast, the IPCC produces nothing but fantasies, especially Pachauri’s masturbatorial fantasies.

Theo Goodwin

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

Arfur Bryant

@ Joe Public
“Do UK taxpayers contribute to IPCC?”
It appears we may well do, mate…
Not that I always trust newspapers, you understand.
IMO, amidst all the celebrations, I am actually slightly dismayed. Having the IPCC on the ‘Warmist/Alarmist’ side was one of the ‘Sceptic/Denier’ side’s best weapons! That, and objectivity…

walt man

IPCC figures are CHF not $ (4% diff)
there are 139,960,580 tax payers in the US
in 2008 US contributed $1,425,000
The IPCC cost each taxpayer $0.01 in 2008.
The total UK contribution to IPCC is £3.1M over 21 years
“Jimbo says: February 19, 2011 at 9:01 am
Great news! The AGW monster is being dealt a thousand cuts and many nails in the coffin. Let’s hope the end is indeed nigh.”
Unfortunately if AGW is true then the end is not nigh. Delaying taking action now pushes the problems onto our future generations.
The IPCC funds no research. It collates, acts as a facilitator for scientific meetings and publishes. Killing the IPCC will not stop research showing that the world is heading for trouble (no it is not heading for disater!).

Frank Perdicaro

Tis all very interesting to watch.
In the US, the spending bills come from the House, which is elected by the people
every 2 years. Spending bills are then sent to the Senate, and occasionally back
to the House in amended form. Then the bill goes to the President.
In this case, with the Republicans in control, the House is simply de-funding the
EPA and IPCC. There is no plan for spending, no allocation, no appropriation in the
spending plan. If this bill gets to the President, and he vetos it, there will be no
spending at all. Not just on the EPA, but on all Federal programs. The EPA
is vulnerable because it is drunk on power, spends too much. More important,
the basic premise of how the EPA fits in the Constitutional scheme has been
strongly undermined by recent court rulings on firearms issues.
As a practical political matter, we have to work on the trivial first. If anybody
in the House proposed what is actually needed today, the bills would never make
it out of the House. We need a radical simplification of the tax code and a major
trimming of social spending.

Jim G

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


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

walt man

“Smokey says: February 19, 2011 at 10:17 am you say:
Where are its skeptical scientists?”
If science says that the earth is an oblate spheroid shape, but others say it is flat…
If science says the sun is not solid but others say it is a gas layer surrounding an iron core…
If science says that disease is caused by bacteria but others say that it is caused by miasmata…
Then should these others be given equal airtime to the science? Many could be taken in by the non-science.
The IPCC have published a number of papers that do not follow the AGW theories

walt man says:
“The IPCC cost each taxpayer $0.01 in 2008.”
That is 1¢ too much.

Fred from Canuckistan

Now if they would just defund the UN . . . . think of the good that could be done in the world if that blowhard, rent seeking, power crazy America hating organization could be neutered.
I wonder if the USA is borrowing money from China to pay their excessive UN dies right now, or is it funded with “real” money from American taxpayers?


I had the opposite reaction to the usage of that particular news source: laughter! At first I thought it was parody! And who doesn’t love a good “denial machine” reference? C’mon!
It’s just another great illustration of the “political science” at work (love the fact that Dr. Austin echoes the sentiment I’ve often made). Do get over it. Everyone’s busy. Mr. Watts, and most of the rest of us for that matter, can only do what we can do. There are plenty of sources out there of every flavor if people are interested in getting the entire picture.
I do agree that the short lead describing it as a “bit political” doesn’t really capture it, so a tweak would improve the presentation for the, shall I say, uninitiated, but again, folks are busy. Thank Anthony instead for his offerings as I again will now.
Thanks again Mr. Watts for all the hard work you and the rest of the crew put in to bring us the news and for offering a great and open venue for all those concerned with this issue. Keep up the great work.
And as RockyRoad notes, there is a “good” side in this debate, and it isn’t all that difficult to dissect. Indeed, where have you been?