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.
“”””” drugsandotherthings says:
May 19, 2012 at 8:25 am
ah yes- the same CRC that states:
Virtually all scientists conclude that most of the recent warming is due to human activities, driven by emissions of such greenhouse gases (GHG) as carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and other air pollutants, as well as land use changes…..models project GHG-driven change to have important impacts on regional economies, human safety and health, and ecosystems, with the potential for surprising and abrupt shifts.
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. “””””
Well druggy, the explanation is quite simple, and readily available for anyone to read, in Article I Section 8 of the US Constitution; first paragraph even.
The “poor military” is one of only two things the Congress is authorised to raise taxes to pay for; the other being to pay the national debt.
Sorry; nowhere is the Congress authorised to levy one penny of taxes to pay for climate activities, nor for that matter, for drugs and other things.
We’d all be able to afford to live high on the hog (those of us who work), if we were only paying for the “poor military”, and leave the rest to private enterprise; including drugs and other things. Climate can take care of itself so it needn’t cost us a penny.
Izen, the globe has been warming since the Little Ice Age. It is not shocking to find recent years the warmest.
ALL of my tallest years have been since I was eighteen “””””
And it is reported that some of the highest altitudes on earth can be found up in the mountains.
Izen says:
“The historical data is not definitive, but does indicate a small rate of rise in the beginning of the 1900s after several thousand years of minimal variation. Followed by a much faster trend when temperatures started to rise again in the 70s.”
Wrong again. The long term warming trend since the LIA remains intact. It is not accelerating above it’s long term parameters.
Take your baseless scare stories elsewhere, they don’t stand up to scrutiny here.
izen says:
May 19, 2012 at 4:20 pm
No, my response suggest that I favor a climate that minimizes any (further) changes to growing regions or growing dates and has reduced variation/extremes. Because our present agricultural systems are optimized for present conditions
===================
That wouldn’t happen even if we were not here at all……..
izen says:
May 19, 2012 at 12:01 pm
After all, if the Mann hockey stick had not been ‘duplicated’ but with many different sources of data and methodologies such as this recent example –
http://www.ccrc.unsw.edu.au/news/news/2012-05-17_1000years_graph.html
It would not have the credibility it has from the validation of similar results from different data and methodologies!
======
I’ll give you that one…….because they duplicated mann’s hockey stick….including splicing real temp measurements onto the end of a paleo reconstruction
You see anything wrong with that?……………..
@- Smokey says: Re:-
“-{Izen says:“The historical data is not definitive, but does indicate a small rate of rise in the beginning of the 1900s after several thousand years of minimal variation. Followed by a much faster trend when temperatures started to rise again in the 70s.”}-
|
Wrong again. The long term warming trend-[link]- since the LIA remains intact. It is not accelerating-link]- above it’s long term parameters.
Take your baseless scare stories elsewhere, they don’t stand up to scrutiny here.”
When I scrutinize your link they are both to surface temperature records.
But the rise, and differing trend rates under discussion in the post you quote are about SEA LEVEL.
trbixler says:
May 19, 2012 at 7:41 am
Obama’s green agenda will leave the U.S bankrupt and defenseless.
_____________________________
Of course. That is the plan. How else are you going to impose “Global Governance” where the USA abandons its sovereignty? The goal is to convince people that the US Constitution is subordinate to “treaties” and global governance.
….Secretary of State John Foster Dulles promulgated what some call the “Dulles Doctrine” that treaties, executive agreements, and votes in the United Nations, could effectively amend the U.S. Constitution and expand the powers of the federal government without limit….
Is International Law Really Law?
Heck the CIA is even in on the plans of moving the USA towards “Global Governance” This was found using FOIA. Here are some links:
Original url: http://www.foia.cia.gov/2025/2025_Global_Governance.pdf
Foia Cia Gov Global Governance 2025 At A Critical Juncture Inquiries Regarding This Report May Be Made To Mathew BurrowsCounselor To The National Intelligence Councilon 703 May 19th, 0711 Download and Read Online Of PDF Files http://www.freeownersmanualpdf.net/ebook/foia-cia-gov.pdf
The National Intelligence Council also released a copy with an explanation: http://www.dni.gov/nic/NIC_home.html
Who the “The National Intelligence Council” is: http://www.dni.gov/nic/NIC_about.html
Who is the “Intelligence Community”: http://www.intelligence.gov/about-the-intelligence-community/
On the one hand they say:
“The men and women of the Intelligence Community (IC) are the frontline of defense against hostile actions aimed at the United States. Our workforce collects, analyzes and distributes information to America’s decision makers that saves lives and secures the Nation.” Source
And on the other hand they say: Our Community:A global network of thousands of people working together
Pascal Lamy, Director-General of the World Trade Organization, at a speech at Oxford University on March 8, 2012: Spotlight on Sovereignty
Lamy calls for strengthened system of global governance 15 March 2010: http://www.wto.org/english/news_e/sppl_e/sppl149_e.htm
Our Global Neighborhood: Report of the U.N. Commission on Global Governance
Analysis: link
From Carroll Quigley to the UN Millennium Summit: link
If the USA is economic and militarily weak then she may be forced into giving up the US Constitution and become a “member state” of the UN instead of a sovereign state, where either the United Nations or the World Trade Organization becomes an overarching body similar to the European Union only more so. Pascal Lamy explains exactly what the plan is.
https://theglobaljournal.net/article/view/56/
Other references:
Global Network Schools: http://globalschoolsnetwork.org/
izen says:
May 19, 2012 at 4:36 pm
…”CO2 warming on the other hand has the ‘fingerprint’ of more warming at higher latitudes where the glaciers and ice-caps are. So sea level rise would be greater because the thermal expansion is accompanied by more ice-melt rise.
The historical data is not definitive, but does indicate a small rate of rise in the beginning of the 1900s after several thousand years of minimal variation. Followed by a much faster trend when temperatures started to rise again in the 70s
==========================================
No izen, the rate of SL rise is linear, with a marked slowing since 2005. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/16/is-sea-level-rise-accelerating/
——————————-
izen cont…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.
——————————————————————————————————–
really, I do not think one of those “national scientific advisory groups” has bothered to submit a petition to their membership. Also, I am not certain any of them have confirmed the “C” in CAGW. Please show the statements.
@- AJB says:
“Izen, an old Chinese proverb for you: 三十年河東,三十年河西
You’re only forty. Give it another couple of decades and check your perspective again.”
Check your math, four more years in the middle, not waving but drowning!
-grin-
Izen wants to discuss sea levels now? OK <–[that is the last data from Envisat.]
And here is another look at what sea levels are doing.
Pamela Gray says: @ur momisugly May 19, 2012 at 8:26 am
….This report by the honorable Senator has me dander up and red hair flaming!!!!!
______________________
My hair isn’t red but I am behind you 100%. One of the few legitimate uses for my taxes is to support a standing army. However I am not happy we are over their in the first place.
If the USA had spent the piddling little amount to follow through on the research on thorium back in 1964 instead of tossing Dr. Alvin Weinberg out, we would not be having to fight wars over resources.
http://energyfromthorium.com/history.html
LFTR in 5 Minutes – THORIUM REMIX 2011 (video) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbucAwOT2Sc
David A says: @ur momisugly May 19, 2012 at 5:51 pm
….really, I do not think one of those “national scientific advisory groups” has bothered to submit a petition to their membership….
_________________________________
I do know the American Chemical Society did not ask our opinion on the matter. Heck in the forty years I was in ACS the only surveys they did was on highest degree level vs salary by catagory.
George Daddis says:
You are right in the sense that the claims were not evenly split in the scientific literature on both sides in the 70s. In fact, there were more scientists talking of warming than cooling: http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/Myth-1970-Global-Cooling-BAMS-2008.pdf
As for Schneider, he published one paper in the early 70s, the first of its kind that tried to quantify the various climatic effects using a primitive model. And, their first attempt at quantification did predict that the cooling effects of aerosols would be larger than the warming effects of CO2. However, it is important to remember that in the early 70s, it was not obvious that the U.S. and other Western nations would adopt the Clean Air Act and other legislation that put aerosol emissions from those nations on a totally different path than what was true up until then. (In addition to this, they apparently made another error that underestimated the warming effect of CO2.) Within a year or two after that, Schneider realized his prediction was erroneous and did what any good scientist does when confronted by evidence that contradicts their hypothesis.
When the National Academy of Sciences was asked to weigh in on climate change in the mid 70s, they issued a report that cogently outlined the various cooling and warming effects on climate and then stated that it was premature to be able to predict which of these effects would win out and thus what the future course of climate would be. They called for more research but no direct action to try to mitigate climate change. This is in direct contrast to what they are saying over 35 years later, which is that we now have a much better handle on the problem and that global warming is a serious threat that we must address with meaningful actions.
So, what lesson does should people take away from this history? I think one learns a few things:
(1) Don’t take Newsweek or other popular media as your source of scientific information. Ask the scientific community (through, e.g., NAS) to give you their expert opinion.
(2) While a few individual scientists might have had strong opinions about where they thought the climate was headed, the National Academy of Sciences correctly distilled that information to produce a report that has held up very well over time…and they were not shy about saying where the uncertainties were simply too large to make a prediction.
Overall, we can see that the scientific community as a whole came out looking quite good in retrospect…although popular journalism not so much.
I agree completely that these alternate fuel mandates for ship and aircraft are a complete waste of money. It’s unnecessary to have a new source of fuel for them because we created the strategic petroleum reserve for just this sort of thing.
However, I do support alternative energy for the Army. In Afghanistan, we use petroleum to run every from our vehicles to our generators and hot water heaters. Shipping that fuel in ends up costing about $400 a gallon by the time it gets to the end user, not to mention all the Soldiers who put themselves in harms way hauling it across IED infested roads. In that context, solar and wind makes sense, regardless of the environmental impact.
Some of this funding has gone towards alternative energy kits containing small solar and wind farms for forward deployed troops. They aren’t big enough to run everything, especially without power storage, but if it takes one less convoy off the road and saves the taxpayer a little money, I’m all for it.
Hummmm, how much money is and or has been spent on the study of natural climate variation ?
Just sayin >>>>>
izen says:
“…I lapped it all up as a scifi devouring geek!”
Some things never change.
izen says:
May 19, 2012 at 4:03 pm
Can you think of any candidates ?
Yes, around that time, the US and USSR were testing many bombs and then treaties were drawn up to limit them. But I do not know how relevant this is since climate seems to go in 60 year cycles anyway. See
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/akasofu_ipcc.jpg
izen says:
May 19, 2012 at 4:36 pm
a small rate of rise in the beginning of the 1900s after several thousand years of minimal variation. Followed by a much faster trend when temperatures started to rise again in the 70s.
Not even Phil Jones will back you up here! See
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm
So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.
Here are the trends and significances for each period:
Period Length Trend
(Degrees C per decade) Significance
1860-1880 21 0.163 Yes
1910-1940 31 0.15 Yes
1975-1998 24 0.166 Yes
1975-2009 35 0.161 Yes
Werner Brozek,
Here are Phil Jones’ trends in chart form.
Wow, I read this interview when it first came out. Now the numbers have changed since its inception. No BS, the link does not now represent the initial information contained in such. It has been adjusted. I can assure you, the numbers in it are not the same as when the article was first produced.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm
@- Werner Brozek says:
“Yes, around that time, the US and USSR were testing many bombs and then treaties were drawn up to limit them.”
Discussed before –
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/04/claim-nuclear-tests-stopped-global-warming-in-the-20th-century/
From the non-stop, off-topic Izen rants, I can tell that this thread has the catastrophists in full panic mode. Nothing hurts like the truth.
@- Smokey says:
“Here -[link]- are Phil Jones’ trends in chart form.
And the red arrows are very pretty.
Do they have any (mathematical?) relationship to the data they are drawn over ?
They don’t correspond to the list of dates and trends in the bottom left of the graphic…
This (tinyed) woodfortrees link however does have a mathematical relationship between the two flat and two steep trend lines that can be imposed on the Phil Jones’ temperature data.
http://tinyurl.com/ck7xk8j
But unless there is a physical explanation for specific date selection such arbitrary parsing of the data is meaningless.
izen says, May 19, 2012 at 5:54 pm
摸着石头过河。 … not by religious belief in post normal nonsense.
Joel D. Shore – is this __THE__ ‘Joel Shore’?
Why the image change … a ‘repackage’ for some reason?
Not that I (or we) need to now, but, I’ve got (player/team) “scorecards” * to update if there has been a name change …
.
.
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baseball_scorekeeping#Scorecards
.