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
(AP)
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
==========================================================
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
John Holdren is a name I have not heard of before from the alarmist camp, is he a new member of the Team? From the tone of the article, he is a typical purveyor of climate scare stories, but apparently with the ear of His Obamaship.
I had to chuckle at the idiocy of this quote: “I think it is going to be very hard to persuade people that climate change is somehow a fraud.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12508050
I am in no position to second-guess the numbers being offered by Walt Man and others on how much the taxpayers have to hand over for IPCC. But I wonder if the real number is higher? IPCC’s direct budget, for office space and internet and staff salaries, is only a fraction of the resource it consumes. Its primary fuel is the time of the many editors, reviewers, contributors, etc etc, to whom it looks for ideas, information, text for the next edition of We’re All Gonna Die. How many FTEs does that represent? How many of the FTEs are on government payroll, or funded by government grants to them, their departments at Mudflat U, etc etc? My point is not that we should obsess about accounting for every dime (no hope of that); but that the spending is like an iceberg, mostly hidden in other folks’ budgets. And that’s probably a big reason why IPCC could flourish for so long, and do so much damage. It wasn’t really “there” in terms of institutional surveillance and accountability.
Here is what I posted there!
If “Climate Change” political scientists are such an Intelligent bunch, why didn’t any of them think that promoting “Climate Change” as a global catastrophic problem for research funding that supports the environmental political agenda of taxing more people so they use less, rolling back industry by “taxing it into the stone age” resulting in governments being unable to afford funding for useless research in the first place. What were they thinking?
Maybe they should try to make a living on the carbon markets and ask them for funding! Not only are the political environmentalists trying to take away individuals responsibility for the environment they live in, They have been so deceptive at going about it, they have also dragged Science through the dirt with unfair treatment of many other scientists who disagree with much of their research.
Galvanize says:
February 19, 2011 at 8:48 am
“Is it up to the Senate to drive this nail home?”
The US government officially runs out of money March 4th. So by March 4th the US House, US Senate and the President have to agree a budget or there will be No Cash for Nobody.
The Senate will make modifications to the budget passed by the House, then the modified budget has to go back to the House to be voted on again. When the House and Senate get done playing ping-pong, it goes to the President who has a ‘take or leave it’ choice. If he doesn’t take it the whole process starts again.
Nice cuts! Beautiful work. Now, Republicans and Democrats: Do not even think about raising the debt ceiling:
“As a debate heats up over whether to raise the federal debt ceiling to $14.3 trillion, Americans have already made up their minds: Don’t even think about it.
In a survey of 915 adults taken from Jan. 30 to Feb. 5, the IBD/TIPP Poll shows an overwhelming 70% agree that “Congress should not increase the debt limit.” That’s a stunning number, when you think about it.
Geithner — and others — have warned that financial markets would melt down if Congress doesn’t raise the debt ceiling. That doesn’t have to be the case. If Congress shows it’s serious about actually cutting spending, it might have the opposite effect on markets — and the added benefit of not forcing our grandchildren to pay even more taxes for our reckless profligacy.”
IBD Editorial
walt man says:
“The IPCC cost each taxpayer $0.01 in 2008.”
And that is the exact attitude that keeps increasing spending at a time when it needs to be decreased. You obviously don’t successfully budget your money.
In 1988 the IPCC’s fatal decision to direct world scientists to focus primarily on the anthropologic influences on climate before understanding the natural influences led to circular reasoning, biased funding, biased publishing, and the acceptance of shoddy research. It is time to push the IPCC delete button.
walt man says:
“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…”
* * *
If walt man says cosmetics are the same as the corrupt UN/IPCC…☺
Sorry walt man, but skeptical scientists are the only honest kind of scientists. There’s a reason why the IPCC doesn’t employ skeptical scientists: the IPCC is dishonest, see? The IPCC is as scientific as Scientology.
OK, you can go back to conflating your cosmetics with UN funding now.
Finally, clarity and action. Enough is enough.
“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.”
the last budget submitted by W was 3,100 billion dollars.
the current budget submitted by H is 3,800 billion dollars.
in two years the budget has gone up 700 billions dollars.
that’s about 11% a year.
How many of us have increased our home budgets by 11% per year.
And the dems complain about 60 billion dollars in cuts.
something is really wrong here.
Great news. Sadly we can only dream of such things here, behind the carbon curtain.
walt man says:
February 19, 2011 at 10:43 am
“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.”
You really should learn something about Western civilization. A bedrock belief of the Western world is that the market place of ideas should be the arbiter of truth. Every idea must be admitted to the market place; otherwise, there is no opportunity for people to criticize the idea and discover that it is false. (Please note that the arbiters of truth are the individuals who make up the market.) The last of the great Western thinkers to hold this position and explicate it beautifully was John Stuart Mill. There have been many after Mill but not quite of his stature.
To take the other approach is to reveal that you are a Totalitarian and that you are quite willing to control a person’s mind through controlling what that mind is permitted to hear or read. There is not one Warmista who is not a Totalitarian mind controller. That was the entire point of their meme “the science is settled.” It was designed to end questioning, end debate, end rational criticism and end climate science. It is the common practice of Real Climate, The Guardian, and all who belong to that nasty little totalitarian herd.
What does science say is the cause of manic paranoia among deluded crowds in the 21st Century? I say it is the same old totalitarian push and today its main vehicle is CAGW. By contrast, no free market of ideas has ever suffered from deluded crowds or manic paranoia.
Hank Zentgraf says:
February 19, 2011 at 11:05 am
“In 1988 the IPCC’s fatal decision to direct world scientists to focus primarily on the anthropologic influences on climate before understanding the natural influences led to circular reasoning, biased funding, biased publishing, and the acceptance of shoddy research. It is time to push the IPCC delete button.”
Yes, stupidest decision in the history of mankind. Of course, those who foisted it upon us saw it as a self-fulfilling prophecy and a road to riches.
DSW says: February 19, 2011 at 10:16 am
“walt man, you miss a crucial point – the cosmetic sales (kudos for picking something superfluous)”
I think Walt should have picked heroin or cocaine spending as something that could be compared with IPPC spending (or maybe even the whole UN funding). All three have the same basic properties, the illusion of reality when in use, staffed by corrupt persons, operating in a global tax-free market, selling the dream and leaving you nothing of substance to show for your money. Oh, and they all rot your brain if you can not stop the addiction.
TheTempestSpark says: “Here is what I posted there!
By “there” I assume you mean Climate Science Watch.
There are as yet no comments shown on the CSW page
http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2011/02/19/house-votes-244-179-to-kill-u-s-funding-of-ipcc/
I too posted a comment there about 7 hours ago (I have kept a screen image):
“So what if the IPCC is closed down. Scientific research will continue intact, because the IPCC did not do any research[*]. Scientists will continue to publish their research as usual. The removal of a very powerful partisan organisation like the IPCC will open up the scientific debate a bit, which is a good thing for science. The scientific process can come to the fore, and science should then prevail.
Nullius in verba.
[*] This really is true. The foreword to the IPCC Report (page v) states : “The IPCC does not conduct new research.”
PS. Those Climategate emails were real.”
Will they publish the comments?
Smokey,
Once again your reasoning ,is, in my humble opinion front page news.
Thank You
George
walt man says:
Clueless. The IPCC do not publish any papers except their report and related propaganda. They are a meta-science organization that analyzes the science of others, which includes, apparently, other propaganda group publications such as those from Greenpeace and the WWF.
Mark
I watched the house efforts last night, as already mentioned there were numerous positive ammendments proposed that will if ultimately passed will restrict the EPA and other power grabbing departments of the Administration from imposing onerous requirements on our Country.
Many of these were bipartisan and even some ammendments were either proposed by Democrats or strongly supported (such as reversing EPA previous approvals for coal mining in W Va.).
I listened to Waxman spout his Kool Aid support for The IPCC along with other ammendments to reign in the EPA and was sickened for his dishonesty and ignoring the scientific facts.
I can’t verify that this is a 100% accurate quote but the following summarizes his continuing support for criminal like behavior within the IPCC.
This is the Waxman position now officially rejected by the House of Representatives:
“Waxman: The U.S. contributes only $2.3 million to the IPCC. Our $2.3 million contribution leverages a global science assessment with global outreach and global technical input – a process we could not carry out alone and one that could come to a halt without U.S. support.
Its work on climate change is unparallelled, and its four assessment reports to date have brought together thousands of scientists around the world, in disciplines ranging from atmospheric sciences, to forest ecology, to economics, to provide objective and policy-neutral information. The panel has attracted hundreds of the best U.S. scientists. In fact, a majority of the research that’s reviewed is undertaken in U.S. institutions.
The IPCC’s work has been lauded by the U.S. Academy of Sciences, and by the Interacademy Council, a body comprised of the national academies of the world. The organization won the Nobel Prize in 2007 for its assessment work.
This institution is a nonpartisan and technically extraordinarily sound organization. The Republican majority has already voted to prevent EPA from using funds to regulate greenhouse gases. Now we’re being asked to de-fund the work of international scientists to learn about the threat.
The assumption seems to be that there is no threat, and therefore let’s not study it. I think that is not a wise assumption. This is a very shortsighted proposal to cut these funds. It’s like putting our heads in the sand, denying the science, and then stopping the scientists from working – because they might come to a different conclusion from the Republican Party’s ideology, in believing that there’s no problem and therefore we don’t need to know anything about it.
If we’re not going to do anything here at home, at least work internationally to understand the threat and work with other countries to combat it.”
Waxman totally ignores the corruption and misinformation of the IPCC and blindly wants us to waste taxpayers $$$ on an organization that is driven by the progressive agenda . Who is ignoring the scientific facts? Notice he uses the ugly word “denying”.
That describes his lack of charcter and understanding of science perfectly.
Not only should the IPCC be defunded but the entire UN should be defunded totally.
This is the organization that gave you the criminal Maurice Strong. All the UN bureaucrats should be tried and executed for fraud and crimes against humanity.
It will be good to see the dems stonewall over this and shut the government down.
Maybe we can save a few bucks if ALL funding is stopped!
In all fairness Rajendra Pachauri deserves a pat on the back, his insistence as staying on as leader of the IPCC can only have helped.
It just occurred to me that there is a practical point that Walt Man does not understand. Walt Man thinks of scientists as the repository of intelligence in a society and wonders why their views do not receive special treatment. It’s simple, Walt. When farmers need scientists, they hire them. If there were no farmers there would be no scientists. That has always been true and will always be true. Farmers built the state university system that now includes Penn State, Ohio State, and most other flagship state universities. So, Walt, it is a market place of ideas and farmers rule in that market place. It does not work the other way. The claim that if there were no scientists there would be no farmers is false. You have misplaced faith in the importance of scientists. Don’t feel bad; John Kerry holds the same politically disastrous views.
D Caldwell says:
February 19, 2011 at 8:46 am
Elections have consequences….
Nice!
Galvanize says:
February 19, 2011 at 8:48 am
Blessings from across the pond!
Is it up to the Senate to drive this nail home?
The President has a veto pen. Two years till a new President. Which Republican will it be?
From the Climate Science Watch site, to which this post is linked, a quote from Democrat Rep. Henry Waxman:
“I don’t see how the gentleman from Missouri can say that this is a ‘nefarious’ group of people. After all, these are scientists who have won the Nobel Prize for their scientific acitivites. I used to think that people from Missouri were the ‘show-me’ state. Now this gentleman from Missouri is suggesting, I don’t want to know about it. And I don’t think that’s what the position should be of the United States Congress. Let’s learn the facts, and then decide what to do about it, and not stop trying to learn what the science is behind the global threats.”
1. “After all, these are scientists who have won the Nobel Prize for their scientific acitivites.” The IPCC’s Nobel Prize is the 2007 Peace Prize; it was not for scientific activities. Al Gore is a co-winner of the award, and he is a scientific illiterate who thinks the temperature of the Earth’s core is millions of degrees.
2. “I used to think that people from Missouri were the ‘show-me’ state.” Well Mr. Waxman, Missouri continues to be the “show me” state. They have been shown that the IPCC is be rife with problems; they have been shown the unscientific bias of grey literature; and they have ultimately been shown a disconnected, advocating Summary for Policy Makers. And with the IPCC prepping for a 5th report, we all see that the show will go on.
3;. “Let’s learn the facts, and then decide what to do about it, …” Let’s learn the facts, I agree, because the science is certainly not settled. Of course he ruins the neutrality of that statement by saying “… and not stop trying to learn what the science is behind the global threats.” As always, they use partisan assertions and catastrophic rhetoric to justify themselves.
I’m really getting tired of the self-righteous indignation of the CAGW eco-warriors and their political hacks. They make me sick.
walt man
Government spending is different than private spending. If you’d like you can give me some of your money to spend in ways that will cause further spending of your money down the road which will lead to spending even more of your money. I’m sure you’d like that.
Sound good to you?
The IPCC has caused billions in expenditure. And it has caused deaths through biofuel programs. Do you enjoy killing people?
What a silly comparison you make to spending money on cosmetics to how much is spent on the IPCC.