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
==========================================================
Rocky H
walt man doesn’t want to talk about all the people that have died from biofuel programs that have aided in the rise of food prices.
Mike Jonas says:
February 19, 2011 at 11:56 am
Yes that’s where I posted my comment too, I’ve checked back and no comments have been posted as yet! It will be interesting to see if they get published, I see no reason why the good people over there, who respect other peoples fair opinions wouldn’t. 😉
That is now the prevailing viewpoint of the majority party in the U.S. House of Representatives.
While you revel in the great democratic experiment please spare a thought for the less fortunate. Here in the “EU” there will be no vote, majority or otherwise.
The thieves you fought off a few hundred years ago still run the show here. So whether the IPCC vote or the EPA vote go one way or the other for you, just thank history that you actually get a vote.
Here, it looks like the only way to stop our carbon scammers, before more of us die in yet another freezing northern winter with no fuel, is to take off their hands. Literally.
Give us our dues though – we invented revolution (at least a hundred years before you lot). These votes (won or lost) are why, despite it’s many failings, US democracy works and why no vote in the Robber Barron paradise of Europe always ends in riots and detached heads.
The IPCC has the climate change of carbon dioxide backwards. Just like Al Gore did with his “Inconvenient Truth” documentary when he said about the Vostok Ice Core data, that a CO2 increase came first that made the earth temperature to rise. It was just the opposite, a temperature increase came first, the oceans got warmer followed by an increased release of CO2 from the oceans to the atmosphere due to decreased solubility.
Actually carbon dioxide causes a slight cooling effect. Its concentration in the atmosphere is only around 400 ppmv compared to water vapor that can be as high as 4%, at that level around 1% of that for water vapor. It was proved after 9-11 that contrails cause cooling. With grounded air traffic (no contrails) the temperature actually increased 1 degrees centigrade for the 3 days planes were grounded compared to the 3 day temperatures before and after the grounding.
It ain’t rocket science; all clouds of water vapor shade the earth and cool it during the day. At night a cloud covered sky keeps the earth from cooling off as fast (insulating effect). However, the cooling effect during the day dwarfs the slight warming at night.
With a slight increase of CO2 in the atmosphere the cooling effect is there but it is so small one could not measure it. When this truth becomes widely known, will people start another campaign to eliminate CO2 because it cools the earth ever so slightly?
This climate change crap was always only about the money; there is no real science associated with it. Al Gore and David Blood of Goldman Sachs started Generation Investment Management in 2004 and in 2008 had $5 billion dollars in investments. It is a shame what has gone on but the world is waking up to the “Big Lie”.
congratulations, from the other side of the atlantic. Hope this vote against funding sets a precedent
My stomach hurts when Waxman’s name comes up. Remember he admitted he did not read the cap and trade bill. Suddenly he started reading? If you don’t read a bill with your name on it, I suspect he hasn’t suddenly become an avid reader.
For years the IPPC ruled all our policies from the White House to the Mayor’s office of Punta Gorda.
Now, the Mayor can change the Shingle.
As for The White House, he can blame it on Bush.
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…”
——————————————————————-
Who and where is this person called ‘science’ who speaks to us all, laying down the unquestionable truths?
I don’t think you have the faintest idea what the word ‘science’ means.
As for 1 cent per person or whatever for the IPCC – the amount is irrelevant. Do you think it would be OK for the taxpayer to subsidise Somali pirates if it were only half a cent per person? What a silly argument!
Going, going, gone. A long goodbye is better than than no goodbye at all. This is nothing but good news!
Meanwhile, back in Australia …….
(nuf sed)
Great news. I suppose this means that NASA can cancel all of those expensive Model E computer runs for AR5…
And to those such as walt man who think that funding the IPCC is important, please sell everything you own and give it to the IPCC. Or, better yet, organize a fundraiser (such as a bake sale or community dance) especially for IPCC funding. Average people will come out in droves to contribute. You could even create an infomerical for cable TV…the possibilities are endless!
I don’t believe this bill, by itself, will have any impact on funding for the IPCC. The IPCC gets its funding from the UN. While the UN gets a great deal of funding from the US, the US will not completely defund the UN (even if that might be the best course of action). The US needs to trim about $1.8 trillion from its annual budget so I’m for cutting almost everything in sight.
The best way to convince the UN to drop the IPCC is to offer an alternative assessment of the science, an idea I am still working on.
Roger Longstaff : This is excellent! But can your Senate, or President, block it? (I am an ignorant Limey).
Appropriations bills have to originate in the House of Representatives. Typically the President drafts a budget request and sends it to the House to be entered as a spending bill (with appropriate Machievellian maneuvers of course); The Senate has to vote for or against it and if it’s against. the House negotiates a compromise with the Senate and tries again. When it gets to the president he can either vote it into law, veto it or just not sign it and let it die. If the President doesn’t sign it into law there is a chance that he’ll not get the money to run the government when the last appropriations expire and basically everybody working in the government that’s not mission critical stops getting paid and is told to go home! It’s not likely that even Obama will risk shutting down the government to fund the IPCC
The Republican congressman seemed to have a pretty accurate and succinct view of things. Well done.
Sen John Kerry on the attempt to cut heat subsidies:
“I’ve always supported serious efforts to restore fiscal sanity, but in the middle of a brutal, even historic, New England winter, home heating assistance is more critical than ever to the health and welfare of millions of Americans, especially senior citizens,” Kerry wrote
Above and beyond the 1 cent argument, the IPCC was being used to try to engineer a world government – or at least control of the sovergein states energy usage and to allow UN taxation. At least that’s what I took from the Agenda 21 info from Copenhagen.
3×2 says:
February 19, 2011 at 5:15 pm
“The thieves you fought off a few hundred years ago still run the show here. So whether the IPCC vote or the EPA vote go one way or the other for you, just thank history that you actually get a vote.”
I feel for you, quite sincerely. If it is any consolation, Britain will soon serve as proof that a Western government is at war with its people and quite willing to destroy them in the name of ideals that are truly fantastic.
Is it time to hang a sign above the entranceway to the IPCC HQ at the UN to discourage people who think there is a long term career within?
Yes, the sign should read:
Moderators,
Sorry I screwed up the terminating blockquote command in that last comment.
Hope it doesn’t screw up this whole thread.
John
@walt man
I did not know that the IPCC was involved in biofuels. Care to share a reference?
Indeed it doesn’t as such, but the IPCC is an important link in a political chain, at whose very end stand controversial (to put it mildly) policies such as biofuels.
Who Supports Biofuels (bio-ethanol etc) is it the Greenies?
Some of them do, yes, even though some don’t as such. That is good to know, but mostly irrelevant. The political process, at whose beginning stands a fabricated hysteria about “climate change”, ends in policies such as biofuel, even if not everyone involved in the chain agrees with the outcome.
BP is one of the world’s largest energy companies, offering expertise in fuels technology and access to major fuel markets.
We’ve been saying that all along. The “climate change” policies are about big business, about big powers about to change our societies according to their tastes. They are not a bit about climate, environment, or the betterment of people’s lives. The greenies are merely useful idiots, most of whom would not support the ends they ultimately serve if they could see through them.
@walt man:
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?
You managed to misrepresent the scientific process wildly in these three lines. Science has, at different points in time, “said” all those things that you wrongly misattribute to “non-science”. The scientific process is about stating hypotheses and then weeding out the bad ones. Many hypotheses stated in that process are “said by science” at one time only to be found out to be wrong at a later stage. At the same time, no hypothesis is ever “proved” to be right. The best that could be said about any scientific hypothesis is that it survived all tests so far.
We are witnesses of that process today. It is very well possible that the “dangerous global warming caused by humans” hypothesis may be disproved any time. Like all scientific hypotheses, it is not beyond doubt.
The most important point though is that the debate is largely not about science, but about politics. The question if we want to fund biofuels, ration CO2 emissions, by consequence ration energy consumption, and by consequence cripple our economies, possibly deindustrialise the western nations and cause all kind of social unrests, is absolutely not a scientific one. I would be opposed to those policies even if the “dangerous global warming caused by humans” hypothesis were true word for word.
So, defunding an important gremium in that political process is a political move to stop those policies. It’s not a statement about science.
As much as I dislike politicians as a class, I admire Senator Inhofe’s professional restraint.
The green zealots that caught him in the Capitol’s corridor obviously hoped that the senator would lose patience with them, and would go on record with something they would be able to ridicule in mass media. Mean, intellectually lazy, insidious bunch.
But in the end they came through as liars, what with all their questions full of exaggerations and false assumptions, and senator has shown that he is worth being a statesman.
1. Don Shaw says:
I watched the house efforts last night, as already mentioned there were numerous positive ammendments proposed …… I listened to Waxman spout his Kool Aid support for The IPCC a….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….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.
Ever notice how people refer to the Nobel Prizes as if they are some sort of gold standard? I truly believe that correction of the public’s perception of this crooked organization has to be a priority… since organizations such as the IPCC and Nobel are all are all in cahoots with each other in some way, once one crooked link is exposed it has to ripple over to all the other organization that it has ties to. I would have hoped that if anyone had any doubt that this is nothing but a bunch of leftist agenda promoting thugs, the illusion would have been shattered when Obama won a prize a scant couple of days or so into his presidency when he obviously hadn’t done anything… it was just the Nobel thugs saying to Americans “See… we appreciate that you finally elected someone who we like a whole lot better than that Bush fellow and remember this prize when the next election comes around.” This message needs to get to the masses.
walt man has disappeared.
I agree with roger knights i hope the GISS is next (please)