Congress shuts down foreign climate funding

From Physorg.com

Full story at Physorg

US panel votes to bar climate funding.

h/t to Leif Svalgaard

Advertisements

80 thoughts on “Congress shuts down foreign climate funding

  1. Finally, Congress is going to put a stop to wasting money on something that does not exist. The sun heats and cools the earth, not trace elements. Clean energy should be slashed from all Federal budgets.

  2. Small step in the right direction. Let’s hope the Senate Donkeys don’t mess up a good thing!

  3. I know I’ll be among the few to object to this, but I object to this. I think we should be helping poor countries leapfrog energy technologies the way we helped them leapfrog communications technologies.
    It doesn’t necessarily mean spending our tax dollars to build wasteful windmills (although there would probably be some of that, sadly). But guaranteeing loans for natural gas plants or clean coal plants to bring electricity to people who have never had access? I’m very much in favor of it.
    But then, I’m a librul Democrat…

  4. dayum………..
    There goes the Maldives new international airport………………………..

  5. Excellent.
    WE are the real vulnerable population; feeling the effects of giving away borrowed money. Lots more funding of this kind needs to be stopped as well.

  6. Why not simply stop funding the IPCC in any form ? I would think this would be a prudent position for the US given the budget problems.
    The US has carried the UN for long enough – let some of the climate change cheer squad countries carry the load for a while.

  7. Oh, I thought it was a ban on grants to UEA and other foreign scientists.
    How much foreign aid have we doled out? I know there were some substantial amounts promised at Copenhagen, but I’m not sure how much, if any, made it out.

  8. Exactly what vulnerable populations are “feeling the effects of climate change”. Example, please.

  9. Wow, They want to send offshore a portion of the 1.3 Billion dollars that will be heavily borrowed from China to “small island nations that will feel the brunt of climate change”. Look, I will be far more underwater than some of the so-called islands if we do not get congressional spending under control. In the words of the Florida Representative: “we have to prioritize US tax dollars.” What a novel thought. How about getting China to just send money directly to the islands and bypass the whole mess- as according to the Warmists, it’s going to be their coal burned that is causing the whole sea level rise anyway. /sarc

  10. @Thomas Fuller,
    I’m sorry natural gas plants and clean coal are not in the plans. It is economic colonialism pure and simple and I challenge you to find a single NGO or IPCC plan for the developing world to the contrary.

  11. I think it would be nice to help poor countries leapfrog energy technologies and encourage natural gas plants or clean coal plants, but nice things for other countries should drop off our priority list in a heart beat when we don’t have the luxury funds for such indulgences.

  12. heh,heh.
    Now stop all the rest of the Junk Science money we send overseas to placate America haters.

  13. In Japan, from fiscal year 2006, annual expenditure (aka squander) for tacklin global warming amounts to $16 billion by the government, $20 billion by local authorities, and probably more than $15 billion by industries. More than $300 billion has thus been spent so far (and will be spent into the future unless politicians/AGW researchers change their minds), with no noticeable effect on the national CO2 emissions, let alone on the global temperature. Foolish.

  14. Congress finally shows some cajones. It’s about time…
    Now if they could significantly defund the EPA… 🙂

  15. Let me know when those “poor countries” complain about all that foreign aid we sent them, that we could only afford to send them because we were polluting the planet and disrupting the climate with our carbon emissions. Jeez, it’s like finding out at relative was able to keep sending you money for years because they worked as a paid drug cartel assassin.
    In fact, it would be a proper protest, proving their sincere concern for the planet, if they would immediately send all that Blood Money right back to the US. Why, when you think of how badly America mutilated Mother Gaia to earn all that filthy lucre that was sent to them, you can easily see how the only proper moral course of action is to send all of that foreign aid promptly back to the US. What sort of country would voluntarily want to be corrupted by such dirty funds? They should immediately send it all back and demand we never again send them any more of such funds!
    Yeah, that’ll show those Earth-molesting Americans who really has the moral high ground!

  16. It is time to cut back on government aid such as discussed in the lead post.
    Those of you who are concerned about possible cuts in foreign aid can still contribute to those poorer countries directly with your own capital. And you all can use your contacts in the blogs and with media to orgainize rock concerts and charity drives.
    John
    PS. Leif – Thanks for the H/T to WUWT

  17. Thomas Fuller says on July 21, 2011 at 5:13 pm
    I know I’ll be among the few to object to this, but I object to this. I think we should be helping poor countries leapfrog energy technologies the way we helped them leapfrog communications technologies. …

    By distributing ‘gimmies’?
    Thomas, I am of the mind that people must work for the things they want. And, it’s not that I don’t think “the people” themselves will not work, it is their overlords and dictators (yes, dictators in the year 2011) that see to it that ‘the people’ would not and do not benefit (by a variety of political and economis ‘strongarm’ mechanisms too lengthy to go into).
    Something separates many other countries from our ours and our developmental history, things like: The Declaration of Independence; The Magna Carta; The Mayflower Compact; Virginia Declaration of Rights. These and their associated history/learning experiences set us on our current path and has defined our modus operandi. I think it may take another several generations before ‘people’ in “poor countries” (your term!) discover freedom and throw off their chains of enslavbement; this will take time and education (and NOT just formal classroom education/book learning!)
    In the meamtime we do (the US) provide them/other peoples with assistance … but it will be not specifically geared to faux ‘green’ ends with these cuts in effect.
    I think one of the better things that we can do is to support “missions”, as classically defined in the religeous sense (spreading the gospel, et al), but then that is me.
    .

  18. While the space program is starved to death the shameless Libs keep piling on more and more waste.
    “We can’t have a space program, you see, because arrogant Amerika doesn’t deserve one. Amerika only got rich by stealing from those poor nations, so we noble Libs are going to impoverish the U.S. by giving away borrowed money to the corrupt kleptocrats who keep those foreign countries poor.”
    We’re doomed to Death by Liberal Rule. The next election will decide if the Doom is irreversible.

  19. Hey, what about funding for vulnerable populations that are already feeling the effects of two generations of government mis-management? Aren’t we, here in the US, a vulnerable population?

  20. This is a real shame. Let’s hope Obama can restore funding. Developing nations deserve help with climate change, and as the richest country in the world, we have a responsibility to help.

  21. One panel vote does not a ban make. I understand it’s the principle of the thing, but 1.x billion is chump change in today’s world. That said I’d love to see the Democrats and Mr. Tax and Spend himself cut off at the knees. But it seems likely that he’ll bury us under another 1 or 2 Trillion in debt before he’s voted out. There are some other comments I’d make, but the net has eyes and ears. Luv ‘ya BO.

  22. After one theory went to hell, they double down.
    Mass Extinction Caused by Deadly ‘Earth Burp’
    “A small release of carbon dioxide from volcanism initiated global warming of the atmosphere, increasing temperatures in the oceans,” Ruhl told FoxNews.com. “Methane is stored in the sea floor — it’s a molecule which is caught in some kind of ice structure. As soon as the temperatures got above a certain threshold, the ice melted and that methane was released.”
    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/07/21/mass-extinction-caused-by-earths-burp/#ixzz1SnHpwHwC
    Again we have a miniscule amount of CO2 warming DEEP oceans enough to boil off methane. And the magical tipping point is back. Sorry. I am a skeptic This is alarmism at its best..

  23. That would be so great if true. Usually republicans are really idiots when it comes to science so I am highly skeptical when they have the sense to know what to oppose. The climate crowd is so obviously Marxist that it doesn’t take much to figure out what is the right course of action. Some of the more seasoned republicans seem to have lost their minds as they are exposed to the propaganda. Washington seems to make them all lose their minds if they are there for more than a couple of years.

  24. Mcw: I don’t think the Senate Donkeys can fouls it up. All spending bills have to start in the house. Sure the Senate could put it back in, but if the house hold together on this the Senate can’t do anything.

  25. The headline is inaccurate. The AP’s own headline was “US panel votes to bar climate funding”. And the second para in your report says:
    “But the measure’s future is uncertain as other committees also have jurisdiction over climate funding including in the Senate, where Obama’s Democratic Party is in control.”

  26. If the European Socialists feel so strongly about assisting the Third World countries let them foot the bill for this phony climate scaremongering.

  27. Isn’t it easier to not give away money we don’t have rather than to give away money we don’t have?
    C’mon, Senate-critters! Take the path of least resistance. Do it for the children. Save the old folks from Alpo dinners. Stop giving away Other People’s Money.
    Signed,
    One of the Other People

  28. Since Pachauri appears to recognize no “controlling legal authority” for the IPCC other than “the nations that govern”, I would urge US lawmakers to defund the IPCC and any “mitigation” policy advocates before cutting funding for the adaption oriented poorer countries.

  29. Thomas Fuller says:
    July 21, 2011 at 5:13 pm
    I know I’ll be among the few to object to this, but I object to this. I think we should be helping poor countries leapfrog energy technologies the way we helped them leapfrog communications technologies.
    It doesn’t necessarily mean spending our tax dollars to build wasteful windmills (although there would probably be some of that, sadly). But guaranteeing loans for natural gas plants or clean coal plants to bring electricity to people who have never had access? I’m very much in favor of it.
    But then, I’m a librul Democrat…
    __________________________________________________________________
    “Foreign aid might be defined as a transfer of money from poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries” -Ronald Reagan (1986).

  30. I predict that many foreign climate change afficiandos won’t be so hot on the idea when they have to foot the bill. It’s time for the subsidized hatchlings to fly away.
    Let the foreign countries do thier own stuff, or pay us to do it for them.
    Hmmm…..sounds like a business opportunity to me.

  31. From Nick Stokes on July 21, 2011 at 6:54 pm:

    The headline is inaccurate. The AP’s own headline was “US panel votes to bar climate funding”.

    Which would have happened when the AP copied the AFP article.☺

  32. Michael Klein says:
    July 21, 2011 at 6:22 pm
    This is a real shame. Let’s hope Obama can restore funding. Developing nations deserve help with climate change, and as the richest country in the world, we have a responsibility to help.

    America is $14 trillion in debt, richest country indeed
    I’ve not long returned from the Solomon Islands, and seen where the aid money goes. It is 90% wasted on buying votes from wantok, in giving voters tinned tuna and rice, and near the next election, a solar panel to provide a light bulb in one of the bush houses.
    There is no “climate change” happening, all that is happening is a continual outflow of developed countries wealth to a group of undeveloped countries that have no intention of actually lifting them selves by any means above the undeveloped status they are given, because to do so stops the input of other countries largesse
    another anology to this is the refugee camps in the Sudan, that I had the opportunity to work in,
    We were providing food to a nation that were at best nomadic tribes, that followed the seasons, and survived. I’m not saying they lived well, but they survived. We set up camps that flew in supplies, fed whoever arrived, flew in more supplies, ran convoys through at times rather interesting gun battles, and still the people kept arriving.
    All that happened was that the camps grew larger, more people kept arriving, one camp I worked at was 20 years old, we had adults who had been born there, and knew nothing of their parents way of life, and were now conditioned to waiting for supplies from us to survive, despite several years of rainfall, good pasture etc.
    Peter Bauer emphasised this years ago, that we were, and are creating a world of nations that have become dependent on developed countries wealth and generosity, without actually being responsible for the outcomes of what the receive.
    I am so over the feelings I used to have about helping undeveloped nations lift themselves, when all I have seen is the total waste and continual hand out mentality espoused by the people that I was supposedly trying to lift into the 19th/20th century

  33. On the other hand, the (very liberal/socialist) democrat Obama-Clinton-Pelosi administration – who controls the “official” words being debated at the UN by the US – is PROMOTING the idea of spending many billion MORE through the (oh so innocent and trustworthy UN and IPCC) ….
    See this story (original link now up at CNS News, via http://www.freerepublic.com
    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2752144/posts
    U.S. Urges U.N. Security Council to Make ‘Climate Change’ A Priority
    CNS News.com ^ | July 21, 2011

    (CNSNews.com) – For the first time in four years, the U.N. Security Council debated Wednesday whether climate change should be considered a priority worthy of the council’s attention, but it failed to reach agreement on the politically charged issue.
    The council settled for a watered-down statement referring to the “possible security implications” of climate change after Russia, China and others opposed a strong text promoted by Germany, which holds the rotating presidency this month. Germany had pushed for a first-ever council statement linking climate change to global peace and security – despite critics’ arguments that the source, magnitude and consequences of climate change remain in dispute.
    Russian delegate Alexander Pankin said many countries were leery of putting climate change on the council’s agenda.
    “We believe that involving the Security Council in a regular review of the issue of climate change will not bring any added value whatsoever and will merely lead to further increased politicization of this issue and increased disagreements between countries,” he said.
    U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice lashed out at countries – unnamed – that were blocking progress.
    She told the meeting that “dozens of countries … whose very existence is threatened” by climate change had asked the council to show its understanding of their plight.
    “Instead, because of the refusal of a few to accept our responsibility, this council is saying, by its silence, in effect, ‘Tough luck.’ This is more than disappointing. It’s pathetic. It’s shortsighted, and frankly, it’s a dereliction of duty.”
    The last time the Security Council discussed this issue, in 2007, was also the first time. Then it was Britain holding the presidency and initiating the debate, and China driving the opposition.
    Joining China were some developing nations suspicious that the council was trying to broaden its power and encroach on areas traditionally falling under other U.N. entities, including the General Assembly, U.N. Environment Program (UNEP), and U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change secretariat.
    Similar arguments were aired during Wednesday’s debate, with non-permanent members India and Brazil among those voicing concern.
    Under the U.N. Charter, the Security Council has “primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security.” In order for the council to take on the issue of climate change, it is therefore necessary for it to determine that the phenomenon poses a risk to “international peace and security.”
    Unlike other U.N. bodies currently responsible for climate change-related issues, the Security Council’s decisions and resolutions are legally binding.
    Addressing Wednesday’s meeting, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon also pushed for recognition of the “threat.”
    “The facts are clear,” he told the meeting. “Climate change is real; it is accelerating in a dangerous manner; and it not only exacerbates threats to international peace and security, it is a threat to international peace and security.”
    Also addressing the council, UNEP Executive Director Achim Steiner conceded that “the world does not have perfect knowledge on current or future climate change” and said it was a challenge to determine what contributions greenhouse gas emissions were making to events like the severe drought now affecting the Horn of Africa.
    “But human beings have never planned strategies or responses based on 100 per cent certainty,” he continued. “Rather we make decisions based on risk assessments …”
    Steiner then pointed to data featuring in reports of the U.N.-backed Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), such as the finding that storms and cyclones had become more intense over the past 30 years and droughts more frequent, as well as projections of a three-foot sea level rise this century – a development that could threaten low-lying islands and other coastal areas.
    “Irrespective of the specific causes and drivers, there is clear evidence that our climate is changing and that the pace and scale of that change is accelerating in many areas.”
    Turning to the security implications, Steiner cited natural disasters, food insecurity and conflicts over resources.
    He said countries where natural resources had played a key role in the conflict have accounted for 10 peacekeeping operations mandated by the Security Council. Their combined cost, $35 billion, “represents half of the total peacekeeping budget ever spent.”

    Again, the climate exaggerations and supposed “threat” being promoted by the IPCC and the “climate scientists” is being directly used by the politicians for their power, money, and population control worldwide.

  34. Michael Klein says:
    July 21, 2011 at 6:22 pm
    This is a real shame. Let’s hope Obama can restore funding. Developing nations deserve help with climate change, and as the richest country in the world, we have a responsibility to help.
    _________________________________________________________________________
    So… send your favorite thugocracy ‘developing nation’ a check. You do have a checkbook, don’t you?
    By my ‘responsibility to help’, you mean that ultimately you would send armed men against me to collect my share, if I were to refuse payment, isn’t that so?

  35. Yes! We should kill ALL foreign climate funding in favor of enriching our own true red-blooded AMERICAN climate heroes, you know like Gavin Schmidt and Kevin Trenberth…

  36. _”Jim says:
    July 21, 2011 at 6:15 pm
    Thomas, I am of the mind that people must work for the things they want. And, it’s not that I don’t think “the people” themselves will not work, it is their overlords and dictators (yes, dictators in the year 2011) that see to it that ‘the people’ would not and do not benefit (by a variety of political and economis ‘strongarm’ mechanisms too lengthy to go into).”
    Yeah. Its unfortunately the dictators, despots and warlords, etc who when it boils down to it. Don’t give a ‘stuff’ about their own people and misappropriate the aid funding meant for them straight into their own pockets. Even stealing food aid and given it to their own band of rabble armies while their citizens still starve as in the case in parts of Africa! Of course those despots are very quick to jump on the ‘scam’ for reparations Aid $$$ from Western nations for the alleged climate change caused to their countries.

  37. “Representative Howard Berman, the top Democrat on the committee, said it would cut off funding for vulnerable populations that are already feeling the effects of climate change.”
    Howard Lawrence Berman (born April 15, 1941) is the U.S. Representative for California’s 28th congressional district, serving since 2003. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Berman
    You can contact Howard at http://www.house.gov/berman/contact/index.shtml
    if you would like to ask him to provide empirical evidence to support his conclusion that “populations are already feeling the effects of climate change.”

  38. Michael Klein says:
    July 21, 2011 at 6:22 pm
    “This is a real shame. Let’s hope Obama can restore funding. Developing nations deserve help with climate change, and as the richest country in the world, we have a responsibility to help.”
    No, Michael. There is no shame in cutting wasteful and fruitless federal spending, when our country is approaching bankruptcy. This fiscal stupidity must stop, now.
    If you feel responsible, please assuage your shame by writing large personal checks from your own personal funds to any developing nation you feel deserves your money. As for me, I’ll continue to write checks to deserving people and organizations that I know will use it wisely.

  39. In our Alice in Wonderland of the southern hemisphere the flow of climate aid is revealed in this extract from the front page of The Australian newspaper of 20th July, 2011.
    “Indians call for end of coal aid.
    Indian environmentalists have challenged Canberra to prove its commitment to climate change by lobbying to end millions of dollars in subsidies for so-called efficient coal-fired power stations in developing nations.
    Under the Kyoto Protocol, developers of clean-energy projects in poorer nations are rewarded by allowing them to offset the costs by selling carbon credits to emitters in developed countries.
    Climate Action Network India board members Srinivas Krishnaswamy said the policy acted as an “indirect deterrent” to renewable energy projects by subsidising business-as-usual energy options”
    So it seems we Australians are subsidising new coal fired plants in India by taxing our old coal fired plants here, (and banning new coal fired plants here), and borrowing 100 million dollars a week from China to balance the budget. Looks like cheap energy for the poorer masses is not on the environmentalist’s agenda.

  40. Does anyone here. And I am assuming all of you have some relation to science, believe that Obama has even taken a science course? He seems barely literate.

  41. Thomas Fuller [July 21, 2011 at 5:13 pm] says:
    I know I’ll be among the few to object to this, but I object to this. I think we should be helping poor countries leapfrog energy technologies the way we helped them leapfrog communications technologies”

    Michael Klein [July 21, 2011 at 6:22 pm] says:
    This is a real shame. Let’s hope Obama can restore funding. Developing nations deserve help with climate change, and as the richest country in the world, we have a responsibility to help.”

    The crux of the problem illustrated. Even as the USA is double-digit trillions in debt, which is assigned only to us taxpayers (our children and grandchildren), money which is effectively borrowed from China and some others, even as annual deficits are over a trillion each year, even as we are cognitively staring at a precipice that the 1929 generation could not see, even with all this and more, still the liberals open their yaps and ask for even more to be spent (and thrown away).
    Liberals are the ultimate enablers, like the bad parent whose son gets in trouble for drinking at school, gets busted for pot, gets arrested for coke, gets a DUI, gets arrested for stealing, gets arrested for meth, kills someone in a drunk car crash, gets arrested for (…). The parent cannot say no, keeps giving them money, the car keys, bailing them out, making excuses.
    There is apparently no situation so dire that will wake up liberals, even a catastrophic 1930’s depression would find them sending our money overseas to freeloaders. I have long said that liberals (democratic socialists) are intent on seeing the system detonate, and everything that President Dumbo has done only verifies this. See this graph and imagine when it is updated for 2010-2011.
    No-one should ever, under any circumstance allow Socialists to be voted into any position of power or where taxpayer funds are at stake. The only people that would logically vote for these criminals are those that are welfare suckers themselves and without any skin in the game.
    Wake up everybody! These people, these Socialists are parasites. We can exist without them, but they cannot exist without us. Shake them off for God’s sake! There is nothing stopping the Michael Kleins and Al Gores from voluntarily associating and using all their existing leftist foundations to spread *their* wealth around to third world hellholes. But they will never do that, not as long as you let them reach into your wallet and spend your money on their causes. This is the root of our problem, they BELIEVE that they are entitled to spending your money.
    Socialism (‘involuntary servitude’) must be eradicated.

  42. fuller- how’s about you ‘we we we’ all the way home and give up your blithely rapacious lust to sacrifice those individuals who are responsible for themselves to those who are not? you are pachauri’s choirboy, is it? you are a cheerleader for human sacrifice. i, personally, need much much less of you and your ilk. my survival may just depend on it. you have to go.

  43. Blade says:
    July 21, 2011 at 11:05 pm
    “There is nothing stopping the Michael Kleins and Al Gores from voluntarily associating and using all their existing leftist foundations to spread *their* wealth around to third world hellholes. ”
    Indeed. I always wondered what would happen if Greenpeace used all the money it collects from its followers to actually help people in need instead of using it for executive fees, abseiling stunts and marketing campaigns. I guess that would make them a right wing think tank.

  44. pat says:
    July 21, 2011 at 10:30 pm
    “Does anyone here. And I am assuming all of you have some relation to science, believe that Obama has even taken a science course? He seems barely literate.”
    Don’t be silly, pat. Of course he’s had a science class. He’s also had geography. How else could he plan to campaign in all 57 states?

  45. the money of the US taxpayer is being used to propaganda, to buy minds and corrupt politicians to approve laws to buy wind farms and give profits to EU… Must be cutted in the name of american welfare. Well done!

  46. “Gerry Connolly, a Democrat from Virginia, likened the Republican effort to the 1925 Scopes monkey trial in which a Tennessee teacher was taken to court for teaching evolution.”
    The guy seems confused. He can’t possibly be referring to the panel vote. Perhaps he needs a vacation.
    It’s hard to see how the continued shakedown of the West, based on faulty and even fraudulent “science” can be compared to the Scopes trial.

  47. I’m from one of those poor nations that is suffering from the invisible effects of global warming. We are making commitments by the zillion in the expectation that someone will pick up the tab, ‘cos that’s what someone apparently offered to do at Copenhagen – and repeated at Cancun. You tell me that the ‘someone’ no longer exists? Say it louder, please before our own politicians run up excessive debts. In my business, I never commit until the ink is dry on the paper. Right now, the warmists are still arguing about what to put on the paper, and Old Nick – sorry, Lord Stern – is dashing around telling everyone to panic.

  48. Climate Change is a serious international commons issue. I’d love to know how this latest move from one of the US’ major political institutions is supposed to help address it.
    Serious issue, serious question. But I guess WUWT just isn’t the forum for it. I’d be very happy for you guys to prove me wrong on that though.

  49. I really wish the UK Government would have the guts to up and say something similar to the politicians in the states. Gas & Electricity charges are rising @ 18% this year, One of the stated reasons is thet the CERT legilslation levied by Gov’t to fund the carbon myth is up 11% on 2010.
    Madness, sheer madness. Unless the funds are being raised and going elsewhere, MP’s expenses maybe.

  50. Thomas Fuller says:
    July 21, 2011 at 5:13 pm
    I know I’ll be among the few to object to this, but I object to this. I think we should be helping poor countries leapfrog energy technologies the way we helped them leapfrog communications technologies.
    It doesn’t necessarily mean spending our tax dollars to build wasteful windmills (although there would probably be some of that, sadly). But guaranteeing loans for natural gas plants or clean coal plants to bring electricity to people who have never had access? I’m very much in favor of it.
    But then, I’m a librul Democrat…
    ————————————————————
    I have no problem with private charities buying and sending needy people some of our extra beef and corn but, I watched many of the leaders in foreign countries DEMAND we give them money. Our government has no money of its own. Our government must take it from U S taxpayers at gunpoint. Many of the citizens of the United States of America do not like our government robbing us to provide RULERS money to buy powerful weapons and ever bigger mansions. Until the despots in these third world backward countries establish a rule of law the only thing coming from sending them money is more starvation and murder of their poor. People in poorer countries need to learn to grow and properly handle food. Having clean water and a sanitary method of waste disposal are required. Laws protecting private property must be enforced.
    Money is the least of their problems. They need technology. They need lots of cheap ENERGY and a way to use it safely and securely.
    If you want them to have money you can send them your personal check.
    Send as much as you like….of your money.

  51. To Ric above, reading inthe press over here (which is actuallyquite good withrespectto Climategate, etc., even the pro-AGW Guardian published a long series inFweb. 2010), esp. in answer to your question about US monies, UEA-UK seems to have been getting something in the order ofthelower 5 figures pounds sterling per annum from US D. Energy, some figures were being published as those funds were put on hold last year (unclear about the reason), this was for payments being made in y 2110. There is some mutuality for UEA-CRU also in the exchange of NOAA psot-docs (see early 1990’s candidates listed online for example fomtaht post-doc web-page that comes up usually around Sept. at least, before the Dec. submission deadline, host-hostee institutions are often switched also on a bi-annual basis, to circumvent ‘insider trading’ ethical requirements, a not unexpected pattern). So in essence, there is a conflict ofinterest inmoney terms between supposedly independent institutions for whatwould be termed collusion in civil court terminology. This seems to be SOP with these people, I am afraid.

  52. H.R. says:
    July 22, 2011 at 3:53 am
    Don’t be silly, pat. Of course he’s had a science class. He’s also had geography. How else could he plan to campaign in all 57 states?
    ===================================================================
    58………
    He said he had been to 57, with one more to go

  53. Why is it that every time the western world “has to” aid the developing world it has to be restricted to giving monetary fund for the developing world to buy new and approved super expensive, already subsidized and less effective, technology from the western world?
    When the World Bank and EU accepted African countries use the indirect subsidies to western world companies called loans also known as “aid”, to use for building coal fired power plants (which they had to work their collective butts off to make happen) instead of just wind and solar, the African countries have to buy the newest most expensive designs. So, essentially, instead of being able to afford to build three plants they can only afford to build one “green and approved” one, and that’s apparently sane. Not only that but they still have to build wind and solar which, of course, incidentally requires the same amount of MW installed capacity by a coal power plant. Which concludes to that by total installed capacity they’ll be able to “service” millions, but in reality not even a couple of hundred of thousands.
    That’s what the crazed climate communist hippies thinks is being kind to the African people when the only ones earning are the “green” tech, already subsidized, companies of the western world.
    I say let the developing countries for once actually develop themselves into industrious nations.

    • Let me offer my total support to your statement Dandy. The so called developing world will never develop as long as the west treats it as a collective of street people who can only survive on alms. Alms that are hugely expensive to the recipient while benefiting just a few of the donors.
      Remember, and remember well, charity is always about the giver and never the recipient.
      Africa in particular is in an infinitely worse condition today than it was under colonial rule. Even the Congo , which was run by a cruel and extractive colonial power, is worse off today in every way imaginable except for a small ruling clique at the top and a small army of aid practitioners trying to implement their ideas in social and economic engineering.
      For as long as Africa can make the west feel guilty for their success there will never be any need for development because the aid simply protects the leadership from the catastrophe they create.

  54. The crisis is the attempt by politicians to grab power and tax dollars to save a planet that does not need saving while imposing restrictions on freedom, transportation and energy use.

  55. Jay says on July 22, 2011 at 5:59 am
    Climate Change is a serious international commons issue. I’d love to know how this latest move from one of the US’ major political institutions is supposed to help address it. …

    I think we need longer days and shorter summers too Jay; do you think you or the ‘major political institutions’ could do anything about the day’s length or shorter summers?
    .

  56. Jay says:
    July 22, 2011 at 5:59 am
    Climate Change is a serious international commons issue. I’d love to know how this latest move from one of the US’ major political institutions is supposed to help address it.
    Serious issue, serious question. But I guess WUWT just isn’t the forum for it. I’d be very happy for you guys to prove me wrong on that though.

    Large, mutant space hamsters are a serious interstellar commons issue, yet somehow Congress hasn’t paid any attention to it. Instead, they’re worrying about stupid things like needing to raise the debt ceiling by Aug. 2, or risk defaulting, and lowering the national debt, which is over $14 Trillion now.
    Seriously though, climate change is only a serious “issue” for True Believers. Equal time for Space Hamsters, though.

  57. Warren says:
    July 21, 2011 at 8:14 pm
    All that happened was that the camps grew larger, more people kept arriving, one camp I worked at was 20 years old, we had adults who had been born there, and knew nothing of their parents way of life, and were now conditioned to waiting for supplies from us to survive, despite several years of rainfall, good pasture etc.
    This has happened time and time again around the world with disastrous results. When you intervene, you own the results. Today’s refugees are the parents and grandparents of tomorrows soldiers and terrorists.
    When you feed starving people you do two things. You bankrupt the local farmers who cannot compete with “free” food. You create many more starving people next year. Both these groups of people will ultimately blame you for creating a worse problem than what they had originally.
    If people are starving they have a motivation to replace the corrupt government that most likely caused the problem to account. When we provide aid, we are propping up these governments, allowing them to remain in power when their people would have removed them.
    In effect, by proving “aid” we undercut the human struggle for freedom, and make our own future less secure. Our own freedom was won at great cost by the previous generations. As happened with the fall of the Roman empire, this is now at risk not from our enemies, but from financial corruption within.
    Governments were not responsible for countries jumping directly to cellular telephones, bypassing land-line technologies. This was done by the market. Innovation driven by the desire for profits as opposed to corruption driven by the desire for profits as too often happens when governments become involved.

  58. Thomas Fuller says:
    July 21, 2011 at 5:13 pm

    At least you are honest. But regardless of our political persuasion, we have to accept the fact that we are broke. Giving when there is money to give is one thing. Giving at the expense of your own citizens is insanity.

  59. pat says: @ July 21, 2011 at 10:30 pm
    “Does anyone here. And I am assuming all of you have some relation to science, believe that Obama has even taken a science course? He seems barely literate.”
    That does not bother me but what is crucial is that Steven Chu (Energy Secretary) begins to see what is going on and speak out with regard to what most of us here believe is bad science, and begins to distance himself to his prior position on AGW. It’s his job to have the science down, then to advise the president and to exhibit the wisdom to spot and report scams when they appear. Unfortunately he will have to do an abrupt U-turn as his prior background stance, before assuming his current appointment, is thus: “He is a vocal advocate ,………, arguing that a shift away from fossil fuels is essential to combating climate change.”
    Shame on him for not speaking up as he certainly is well versed in the scientific method, and is required to be aware what has happened and chronicled in the last couple years with regard to climate science; but guess the comfort and prestige in his newfound position is more important than courageous adherence to good science. Unfortunately this behavior certainly fits well in the pattern of Nobel laureates recently selected.

  60. We shouldn’t give any money to academics in rich countries who are behind promoting global warming. UK comes to mind.

  61. The referenced article (U.S. Panel votes to bar climate funding) identifies the source of the Cancun COP’s claim on the developed world’s assets:
    Mrs. Margaret Mukahanana-Sangarwe (Chair). 2010. Possible elements of the outcome. (Cancun). Note by the Chair. Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention. Cancun, Mexico: IPCC, November 29. http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2010/awglca13/eng/crp02.pdf
    Agenda item 3: Preparation of an outcome to be presented to the Conference of the Parties for adoption at its sixteenth session to enable the full, effective and sustained implementation of the Convention through long-term cooperative action now, up to and beyond 2012. Page 16: IV. Finance, technology and capacity-building. A. Finance
    Scaled up, new and additional, predictable and adequate funding shall be provided to developing country Parties;
    • Option 1: Developed country Parties commit, in the context of meaningful mitigation actions and transparency on implementation, to a goal of mobilizing jointly USD 100 billion dollars per year by 2020 to address the needs of developing countries;
    Option 2 (dropped): Developed country Parties and other parties included in Annex II to the Convention commit to provide 1.5% of their GDP per year by 2020 to address the needs of developing countries;
    Where is Mrs. Mukahanana-Sangarwe from? Zimbabwe, the president of which is President Robert Mugabe, the head of State and Commander in Chief of the armed forces. Mugabe has been in power since the country’s long war for independence. Gleanings from Wikipedia:
    “It has been estimated that at least 20,000 Matabele were murdered and tens of thousands of others were tortured in camps such as the Valagwe camp, where 2-3000 people could be detained for torture and interrogation at any one time.”
    “The downward spiral of the economy has been attributed mainly to mismanagement and corruption of the Mugabe regime and the eviction of more than 4,000 white farmers in the controversial land redistribution of 2000.”

  62. Michael Klein says:
    July 21, 2011 at 6:22 pm
    “This is a real shame. Let’s hope Obama can restore funding. Developing nations deserve help with climate change, and as the richest country in the world, we have a responsibility to help.”
    When you say “Let’s”, are you referring to the majority of those in here (and out there) who are saying “let’s not”? Deserve help with climate change? And who determines what 1) the effects of that climate change are and 2) how much that costs? Are we to send troops of overpaid “researchers” into some area to tell the bewildered local populace that they are about to get helped? Like the example in Sudan cited above, “Let’s help these people lose their identity and their dignity”. Responsibility? Is that your excuse for feeling good? That you have to impose your “cure” on everyone else? Do you get out much and see the effects of this “climate change”? Sorry, Skipper, try again. Your ship is stuck on the bleached coral of your narrow viewpoint.

  63. Can we also stop funding NASA for ‘Muslim outreach’ activities, or is that now their core mission?

  64. Michael Klein [July 21, 2011 at 6:22 pm] says:
    This is a real shame. Let’s hope Obama can restore funding. Developing nations deserve help with climate change, and as the richest country in the world, we have a responsibility to help.”
    aaayy mike:
    while you’re at it why don’t you do some work in attempting aeronautical seductions at ambulatory torides.
    let us know how that goes??
    C

  65. Believe me. That money will never get down to the ‘poor people’ in ‘underdeveloped countries’. It will go to fund air conditioning and such in the president’s palace, if it is used for climate at all. this reminds me of the time Oprah Winfrey donated some million dollars to fight illiteracy in America. It was sucked up by ‘studies’ and nothing made it to the people it was intended to aid at all. Underdeveloped countries have long had technologies available to them cheaply such as methane from waste and solar. Climate change is not caused by poor people in small countries. It is caused by massive changes such as cutting down the rainforests and planting huge palm plantations – which take big money to accomplish. The problem isn’t the little guy with no money, it is the big guy with lots of money and giving him even more money is not going to help anyone at all.

  66. I agree with all the posts that say that aid to underdeveloped countries is misplaced in that it more often than not perpetuates corrupt governments and people dependent upon the hard work of others. That being said, the logic of pumping money into the third world where people are starving and deprived of medicines purely to fund green ways of producing energy escapes me. Do they want these countries to have huge energy bills like we have in the UK to wreck competitiveness with their overseas exports and push more people into fuel poverty?

  67. “… guaranteeing loans for natural gas plants or clean coal plants to bring electricity to people who have never had access? I’m very much in favor of it.” – Thomas Fuller
    Natural Gas & Coal are unacceptable in the AGW realm “clean” or otherwise. They still emit CO2. You need to read up more on the green agenda in the 3rd world. The priority for the greens isn’t about getting electrical service to the frontiers of civilization. Obama put the kabosh on a loan for a coal fired electrical plant in Africa. Are you still proud to be a “librul”
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/08/AR2010040805407.html

  68. Justa Joe,
    Correctomundo. Windmills are much preferred by Watermelons.
    And the amiable Tom Fuller surely means well when he says “guaranteeing loans for natural gas plants or clean coal plants to bring electricity to people who have never had access? I’m very much in favor of it.”
    But there’s a problem: U.S. taxpayers are already being told we must pay for the huge liabilities incurred over the past two years. Why should we also guarantee loans to other countries? I would be in favor of developing the plants and splitting the profits. But loan guarantees? Nope. We hand out too much free money already.
    My position will become clear to the general public when U.S. re-insurers, backed by the federal government, are told to pony up for the defaulted sovereign debt of countries like Greece, Italy, Portugal, Ireland, Spain, etc., etc.
    Think the subprime mortgage crisis hurt us financially? Wait until we have to make good on all that sovereign [country] bad debt. The mortgage crisis will look like a day at the beach compared to U.S. taxpayers being forced to bail out entire national economies to the tune of hundreds of trillions of dollars. We’re on the hook. The public just doesn’t know it yet.

  69. I see Thomas Fuller uses the “leapfrog” argument. Unfortunately, that’s a death sentence for many of the target beneficiaries. The tech so touted is in practice much pricier than carbon-based energy generation, much longer in deployment, and dispensed at the discretion of external agents.

Comments are closed.