Flashback, Michael Mann said this on October 5th, 2010:
Our efforts to communicate the science are opposed by a well-funded, highly organized disinformation effort that aims to confuse the public about the nature of our scientific understanding.
…
Scientists are massively out-funded and outmanned in this battle, and will lose if leading scientific institutions and organizations remain on the sidelines. I will discuss this dilemma, drawing upon my own experiences in the public arena of climate change.
Next time you get challenged on how much money is involved and whose side gets it, point out Mann is delusional by showing them this from 2009, Climate Money, a study by Joanne Nova revealing that the federal Government has a near-monopoly on climate science funding.
The starting point was in June 1988 – James Hansen’s address to Congress, where he was so sure of his science, he and Senator Tim Wirth turned off the air conditioning to make the room hotter.
Then show them this from the Daily Caller:
The Congressional Research Service estimates that since 2008 the federal government has spent nearly $70 billion on “climate change activities.”
Oklahoma Republican Sen. James Inhofe presented the new CRS report on the Senate Floor Thursday to make the point that the Obama administration has been focused on “green” defense projects to the detriment of the military.
The report revealed that from fiscal years 2008 through 2012 the federal government spent $68.4 billion to combat climate change. The Department of Defense also spent $4 billion of its budget, the report adds, on climate change and energy efficiency activities in that same time period.
Inhofe, the Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works and a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, argued that the expenditures are foolish at a time when the military is facing “devastating cuts.”
Video May 17, 2012 by JimInhofePressOffice
Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, and a Senior Member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, took to the Senate floor today to put the spotlight on the far-left global warming agenda that is being imposed on the Department of Defense by President Obama, which comes at the same time the Obama administration is forcing devastating cuts to the military budget.
Senator Inhofe announced that he will be introducing a number of amendments during next week’s markup of the Defense Authorization bill in the Senate Armed Services Committee that will stop President Obama’s expensive green agenda from taking effect in the military.
As part of that effort, Senator Inhofe is also releasing a document put together by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) which reveals that the federal government has spent $68.4 billion on global warming activities since 2008 — and that’s just a conservative estimate. Instead of focusing on funding our critical defense needs such as modernizing our military’s fleet of ships, aircraft and ground vehicles, the Obama administration’s priority is to force agencies to spend billions on its war on affordable energy; this is further depleting an already stretched military budget and putting our troops at risk.
…the Obama administration has been focused on “green” defense projects to the detriment of the military.
And the taxpayers. SecNav Ray Mabus purchased 450,000 gallons of biofuel for $12 million to “help reduce the Navy’s dependence on Middle Eastern oil.” We’re paying over $26 per gallon for something that the Navy *can’t burn* in its turbines until it’s cut 50/50 with JP-8 — jet fuel — which costs about $3 per gallon.
The kicker is, you can run a ship’s turbine just as efficiently on #2 heating oil that costs about $2.79 per gallon…
izen~ it will STILL be warmer than all my teenage years, all the years of my twenties, all the decade when I was in my thirties and all of my forties…
You keep talking as if that actually MEANT anything, compared to the MWP or the Holocene Climate Optimum.
@- JimB says:
” When you only spend money on research to PROVE AGW, all that is considered to be money spent to promote AGW.”
I find it difficult to see how something like the GRACE satellite system which measures small gravity changes can be construed as specifically intended to ‘PROVE’ AGW. Proof is for liquor and mathematics.
That much of the data supports AGW that comes from the GRACE projects is just a result of reality having a well known liberal bias….
[grin]
izen says:
May 19, 2012 at 8:58 am
…it will STILL be warmer than all my teenage years, all the years of my twenties, all the decade when I was in my thirties and all of my forties…
Why are you so nostalgic for a difference in temperature that’s too small to sense with your skin and too small to measure with a household thermometer?
izen says:
May 19, 2012 at 8:58 am
it will STILL be warmer than all my teenage years, all the years of my twenties, all the decade when I was in my thirties and all of my forties…
============================
You felt a 1/2 degree!!!!…………………….rotfl
drugsandotherthings says:
May 19, 2012 at 8:25 am
And wow really? The “poor military”. 68.4 billion on climate in over 4 years- which is 1/10th of the military budget- not including the military related costs that can more then double actual expenditures.
Also included in the defense budget are such *non*-military related costs as funding HomeLand Security, funding the FBI’s counterterrorism activities (both domestic and foreign, as of 2001), and funding for pet Congressional projects such as — no lie — the Special Olympics.
So, it ain’t all going for $10,000 coffeemakers for the C-5A/B or “gold-plated hammers”…
Tsk Tsk says:
May 19, 2012 at 8:25 am
And then there are these two items for consideration:
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/05/18/americas-aging-aviation-force-father-son-flew-same-fighter-jet-30-years-apart/
and
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/guest-post-face-genocidal-eco-fascism
@- Bill Tuttle says:
“Why are you so nostalgic for a difference in temperature that’s too small to sense with your skin and too small to measure with a household thermometer?”
Because while the temperature difference may be too small to sense with my skin or a household thermometer it has easy to sense, and experience the effects on my surroundings. The type of animals and plants change, and when they flower or migrate. –
http://www.arborday.org/media/mapchanges.cfm
Winter sights and sports are changing. –
http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com/2010/04/climate-change-continues-melt-glacier-national-parks-icons5669
And changes in rainfall associated with the warming are altering whole regions. –
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111028115342.htm
With such obvious, and large-scale changes in the physical and biological environment the inadequacy of the human skin or a household thermometer to record these decadel changes seems… irrelevant?
kellyhaughton says:
May 19, 2012 at 7:39 am
It is actually amazing that climate skeptics by using the internet and basically crowd sourcing of information have had such an impact on the debate….despite the funding of the climate change industrial complex by the various governments around the world.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This made me think of “freedom of the press” in the 1st Amendment. Those who wrote it knew that the free exchange of ideas was vital to keeping this Government they’d just formed in check. “The press” at that time was a patchwork of small independant town papers. They didn’t imagine the Mega Media corporations we have today. The internet with its blogs, message boards, etc. have taken the place of those small town papers.
I completely agree regarding Bush Jr. Was he born with a weather vane???? Don’t get me wrong, I’ve flipped (who hasn’t), but not flopped. And only with regard to my party affiliation. I will never go back to the side I came from.
Unfortunately, now that I no longer wish to vote for a democrate liberal watermellon, I will have to close my nose against the stench of homophobia, the ugly marriage act, the war against cigs (don’t smoke, but if you want to kill yourself go ahead), alcohol (now that one I do do), pot (don’t smoke or put it in my brownies, but you go right ahead and enhale a stupid stick), and the Republican desire to be involved in what goes on in my body.
If we take back this out of control government, trust me, I will be working towards freedom regarding these other things as well. But at least I will have a job.
AGW advocates are the suckers W.C. Fields laughed about, they just keep coming back to be kicked. It seems they take turns showing up here with their half truths and wild speculations and expect some to believe them. We, on the side of true science, have long ago learned to examine everything and accept nothing at face value. By the way, we in northwest Oregon , are experienceing a beautiful and average spring. We have had decent pollenization and the weather to promote good fruit crops. I thank a loving God for that. I believe all science leads back to him.
Reblogged this on gottadobetterthanthis and commented:
I have my beefs with my Senators, but Inhofe and Coburn are the best senators around! It is always wise to follow the money.
@izen says:
May 19, 2012 at 7:45 am
“[…]
Its cheap to post articles and print essays rejecting the statements by every national science advisory group that climate change/AGW is a significant problem. Rather more expensive to back up such claims.”
Nah… there was a little bit of funding that went into this –
http://geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
(Scroll down to graph, though the whole article is a good read.)
– and note the graph does show that climate change can be quite extreme and may pose a significant problem for anyone not technologically prepared to adapt to the changes.
But Catastrophic Anthropogenic CO2-based Global Warming? Not seeing it, but from that graph, it sure looks like we could use some were it possible.
Izen, you should know that during cold periods, the looping jet stream and dryer air is making it warmer somewhere else. I could theorize that your experience of the cold of your youth was matched by someone else’s experience of hot, dry weather. So what caused the cold of your youth? What were the atmospheric and oceanic oscillations doing? These are the drivers of cold. Are you saying that the minuscule amount of extra CO2 human development has, based on models, put into the air can now cause these drivers to never occur again? Your premise is absolutely untenable and is thus without merit.
izen says:
May 19, 2012 at 8:58 am
@- Werner Brozek says:
“You say AGW is a significant problem? And you say it is expensive to back up the claim that it it not a significant problem? That is no problem! Here is proof that warming has stopped between 10 years and 7 months to 15 years and 6 months ago, depending on your source.”
I admire the effort you have taken to show that there is little evidence of a warming trend in the last 10-15 years of some temperature indices. Personally I keep an eye of the seal level, ocean heat content and SSts as they represent over 80% of the energy that will shape the climate.
But there is another reason I find your numbers unpersuasive.
I am a little older than ten years old, Its 40 years since I was a teenager and I do remember those decades. I would be much more sanguine about the possible future trends in the climate if every decade since I was 10 years old had not been warmer than the last. However cold 2012 may be, and wherever in the rankings it may end up (ENSO will have a big influence), it will STILL be warmer than all my teenage years, all the years of my twenties, all the decade when I was in my thirties and all of my forties…
Do you think there is ANY prospect I will see a winter as cold as the years of my youth again ?
So let us understand your position. Personally you think it is getting warmer (in your particular part of the world). There are some in the Mongolia area and some in South America who have lost many many head of cattle which froze to death who may disagree with you; however, for you it is warmer.
Yet when the figures are eventually pulled out of the unwilling hands of the climate ‘scientists’ who have used public money to collect them, it is found that they do NOT show hockey sticks or runaway warming. NONE of their expensively produced predictions/projections/forecasts have come true; there is no tropical tropospheric hotspot, no billions of refugees. Not only that but the emails that have been leaked – and accepted as genuine – show that these ‘scientists’ spent a lot of time knowingly misusing statistics and doctoring the figures with ‘tricks’ when they found that the proxies they had been using were not validated by actual measurements.
Tell us here Izen why such people who hide and manipulate their data should be trusted when their results have been used to justify reducing the energy available to people such that energy poverty exists even in rich countries like Germany? .Up to 200 old people a day dying due to energy poverty in UK (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/oct/22/older-people-cold-energy-bills). And why? Because politicians convinced by the published ‘research results’ of climate ‘scientists’ are spending huge amounts of money on windmills and closing viable power generation systems. And in the USA the EPA is using these ‘convincing research results’ to close down entire industries.
Yet at the same time, in the real world which you ignore – “A child dies every 3 seconds, a mother every minute”:, Of these “Every day nearly 16.000 children die from hunger and related causes.” and $1 can save a life.(so that means by the time you have read here probably 20 children and 3 mothers HAVE DIED)
Now Izen justify why — with the total failure of climate ‘science’ to forecast anything correctly and the continual and continued hiding of data these people have obtained using public funds — why they should be provided any further funding? How many of those lives could that $68Billion have saved? Why should anything they say be trusted? Why should the world do _anything_ about climate change when the anomaly over 30 years is less than a degree centigrade (even that increase has leveled off in the last 10 years)?
(And of course as there is a world wide drop in humidity – that entire ‘global temperature anomaly’ could be due just to the lower atmospheric enthalpy and nothing to do with trapped energy at all! ).
In another 20 years time I would hope that your memories are not regrets.
izen~ That much of the data supports AGW that comes from the GRACE projects is just a result of reality having a well known liberal bias…
Ahh yes. Like the increase in ice mass in Greenland, or those Himalayan glaciers that put on mass since GRACE went up. ‘liberal’ amounts of snowfall, would be my guess….
izen, if that half of a degree is not irrelevant, then what about the ten degrees (C) difference which occurred during the Holocene Climate Optimum? Why did it not precipitate the catatastrophic consequences we keep being told about, for 2 degrees of change?
Otter says:
“…if that half of a degree is not irrelevant, then what about the ten degrees (C) difference which occurred during the Holocene Climate Optimum? Why did it not precipitate the catatastrophic consequences we keep being told about, for 2 degrees of change?”
Got an answer for that, Izen?
Warming isn’t the problem. Cooling is.
izen says:
May 19, 2012 at 9:38 am
Because while the temperature difference may be too small to sense with my skin or a household thermometer it has easy to sense, and experience the effects on my surroundings.
===================================
The preceding public service announcement was brought to you by Smith Kline…….
Senator Inhofe seems rather selective in his use of the Congressional Research Service as a source of information. For example, there is this report from 2009 by them http://lugar.senate.gov/services/pdf_crs/energy/CRS_Issue_Statement_on_Climate_Change.pdf that says:
izen says:
May 19, 2012 at 9:38 am
The type of animals and plants change, and when they flower or migrate.
Nature is doing what nature always does — it changes. We live on a dynamic planet, not a static one. When I was a kid, there were still groves of birch trees on Long Island. My father told me that they would be gone within a decade, because they were “cold soil” trees, and the world had been getting warmer since the 1800s. He told me that back in 1954.
Winter sights and sports are changing.
Yes, they are. Luge wasn’t an Olympic event until 1964. As for winter sights disappearing, did I miss the news that it didn’t snow anywhere it normally snows? We had snow covering most of Iraq in 2008 for the first time in a century. There’s still snow on the south face of the mountains around Kabul, and it’s the middle of May — I’m told it’s usually gone by the last week in April.
And changes in rainfall associated with the warming are altering whole regions.
From your link: “Wintertime droughts are increasingly common in the Mediterranean region, and human-caused climate change is partly responsible, according to a new analysis by NOAA scientists and colleagues at the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES).” and ” ‘The magnitude and frequency of the drying that has occurred is too great to be explained by natural variability alone,’ said Martin Hoerling, Ph.D. of NOAA’s Earth System Research Laboratory in Boulder, Colo.” First, NOAA is a governmental agency, and in this administration, it has a vested interest in keeping up the fiction of AGW. Second, anyone who claims that something is “too great to be explained by natural variability alone” is talking through his hat — not all that long ago, the largest desert on Earth was a huge savannah interspersed with boreal forest.
With such obvious, and large-scale changes in the physical and biological environment the inadequacy of the human skin or a household thermometer to record these decadel changes seems… irrelevant?
Yup. Irrelevant. The climate has been changing since Earth first had an atmosphere, and not always in tenths of a degree per decade, and some of the temperature swings that happened before humans ever appeared make the IPCC’s scariest predictions look like a goldfish in the orca tank at Sea World by comparison.
izen says:
May 19, 2012 at 9:38 am
“And changes in rainfall associated with the warming are altering whole regions. –
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111028115342.htm
”
That’s exactly what your side uses its billions for – produce as many “scientific” studies showing the public what they can’t feel themselves in their area so they stay in line and pay ever-increasing taxes to keep the “scientific” busybodies comfortable.
In all your enumerations of the terrible aspects of warmings that you can’t feel but read about in the corrupt media you forgot the worst of them:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7348467/ns/us_news-environment/t/do-dandruff-climate-change-go-together/
Now! you might say that’s ridiculous but – is not every alarmist study equally scientific? Are there ridiculous alarmists and serious alarmists? Are they not all blessed with the same loving care by razor-sharp government scientist minds?
joeldshore says:
May 19, 2012 at 10:41 am: [ … ]
Typical joelshore disinformation: write about Sen. Inhofe, while slipping in a Richard Lugar-promoted link filled with misinformation.
Lugar is salivating like a starving hyena over the prospect of ‘carbon’ taxes. He has a HUGE financial incentive to misinform the public.
There is zero evidence that “Demonstrable effects of observed climate change…” are due to human activity. joelshore has been repeatedly challenged to provide direct, testable evidence proving that human CO2 emissions cause any global harm at all. But joelshore has failed to provide any such evidence, because there is no such evidence.
So enough with the pseudo-scientific political statements by people who have a big financial incentive to alarm the public. It is unethical, immoral, and an outright lie by the Pinnocchio contingent; a mendacious false alarm promoted by joelshore and his ilk.
Smokey says:
May 19, 2012 at 11:03 am
Lugar lost his primary, too. He’s done.
I guess the sum total of Smokey’s comment is this: If Sen. Inhofe posts something from the Congressional Research Service (CRS) then we can believe it without question but if Richard Lugar posts something straight from the CRS we can ignore it because, although Richard Lugar is a Republican, he is not ideologically-pure enough to satisfy Smokey.