Salon: Here’s a List of Potential Climate Budget Cuts

Big Green Cash Cancelled

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Salon has helpfully provided Americans with a list of Federal climate budget cuts which can be applied on day one of the new Trump administration.

Politicizing climate change: Donald Trump’s budget could cut climate funding for NASA, other federal departments

Donald Trump, in an effort to cut spending, is likely going to slash some important climate change programs

BRIAN KAHN AND BOBBY MAGILL, CLIMATE CENTRAL

The world is waiting to hear what President-elect Donald Trump has in mind for governing the U.S. Among the biggest questions is what will happen to the budget for climate and energy-related activities.

Though they’re a relatively small piece of a federal budget that is in excess of $1 trillion, how the administration deals with climate and energy will go a long ways toward determining the future of the planet.

“We don’t get a second chance,” Secretary of State John Kerry said last week at the United Nations climate talks in Morocco. “We have to get this right and we have to get it right now.”

Energy Department
2017 climate-related budget: $8.5 billion

Interior Department
2017 climate-related budget: $1.1 billion

State Department
2017 climate-related budget: $984 million

NASA
2017 climate-related budget: $1.9 billion

Environmental Protection Agency
2017 climate-related budget: $1.1 billion

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
2017 climate-related research and development: $190 million

Read more: http://www.salon.com/2016/11/23/politicizing-climate-change-donald-trumps-budget-could-cut-climate-funding-for-nasa-other-federal-departments/

I must say I’m impressed – that’s $13.5 billion of useless waste which can be cut immediately from the Federal Budget. $13.5 billion is an awful lot of road resurfacing and bridge repairs, or a very welcome new year bonus for hard pressed taxpaying Americans.

Good job guys – if you have any more tips Salon, please be sure to forward them to the Trump Administration.

Advertisements

244 thoughts on “Salon: Here’s a List of Potential Climate Budget Cuts

  1. Gosh, if I didn’t have the highest possible respect for the integrity and honesty of the AGW crowd I might almost be tempted to say that it looks like a pretty lucrative cause to be in. But all this couldn’t just be about the money, could it?

    • Before this degenerates into brainless guffawing, it may be worth realising that not ALL this money is going to AGW activists.

      that’s $13.5 billion of useless waste

      No, there is lot of unscientific “research” getting published which is nothing but activist propaganda. But let’s not forget that without DATA we would not have any knowledge of climate with which to have an informed, scientific sceptical point of view.

      The whole of NASA does not need defunding because of a small group of political activists have been allowed to run GISS for the last three decades under administrations of both parties.

      So let’s not throw the baby out with the bath water. Without continual measurement of climate the prevailing nonsense will unchallengeable.

      • No greg but it is going to climate activists. Not for much longer. Your church is about to suffer earthquake damage.

        That non activist group you point to did not speak out! They are in the same gang. Defund the lot.

      • Thanks Greg You are making exactly the point I wanted.

        However as Anthony showed in his surface data project, the data we’re getting – even in the US is appalling low quality, the people handling it have no recognised quality systems and no sane person would ever have set up such a pathetic mess if it had been properly thought about and contracted from the beginning.

        Trump has a very short time to sort out the mess given it may need huge investment, a lot of political will and totally new organisations to be in place before the next change of administration …. otherwise, UNLESS THERE IS QUALITY DATA AND CREDIBLE ORGANISATIONS COMPILING THE METRICS IN PLACE BY THE NEXT ADMINISTRATION they could well come in and just re-instate the lot.

      • Stephen Richards

        Your church is about to suffer earthquake damage.

        Keep your unfounded BS assumptions to yourself.

        They are in the same gang.

        Yes, unfortunately the lack of courage and integrity in the wider scientific community will lead to a lot of collateral damage. They should have come out in clear opposition and didn’t . They circled the wagons, keep quiet and foolishly hoped it would all blow over and be forgotten.

        Many within climatology have just been happy to profit from the funding bonanza and were prepared to tacitly support the alarmists because it was good for business and their careers.

        This will undoubtedly lead to massive cut in funding that will doubtless end up damaging proper scientific initiatives. That is probably unavoidable at this stage.

        What may be a more useful discussion here on WUWT is to draw up a list of things that should have funding PROTECTED and maintained going forwards.

        ARGO floats are now providing fairly good coverage of OHC. The Arctic sea ice “canary” is feeling a lot better recently and needs to be followed as a continuous series of unbroken data. The satellites providing coverage of atmospheric temperatures need to be maintained as a continuous series.

        Many of these datasets now have about 35y of data. That is roughly the warming part of the 60y natural “cycle”. What happens next is the most important information we need to assess the magnitude of natural variation which has been artificiality attributed to AGW.

        A lot of AGW alarmists would probably be very happy for all this be defunded since the growing number of climate “canaries” seem to be refusing to fall off their perches. If we stop collecting data now they will just continue drawing straight line “trends” through everything and extrapolating out to 2100 or 2300 , etc.

        We need to be very careful in calling everything related to climate as “wasted money”. The whole sceptical argument has been based on climate data.

        Stupid, knee-jerk rants are going to get us nowhere.

      • I say, throw out the baby and then drive a stake through it for future generations to learn from. May well be that some of this scientific activity is for real, but the thing is it was used to pull this hoax on the world.

      • Greg – November 24, 2016 at 1:56 am

        The whole of NASA does not need defunding because of ………….

        So let’s not throw the baby out with the bath water.

        Uh, Greg, desperation to engage in conversations will more often than not cause one to “blurt out” silly arsed commentary that truly exacerbates their foolish mindset in the eyes of their audience.

        Throwing out NASA’s climate-related budget would only amount to a wee bit of “bathwater”, to wit:

        NASA – 2017 climate-related budget: $1.9 billion

        Senate bill gives NASA $19.3 billion for 2017
        http://spacenews.com/senate-bill-gives-nasa-19-3-billion-for-2017/

      • They circled the wagons, keep quiet and foolishly hoped it would all blow over and be forgotten.
        ===

        The word you’re looking for is complacent

      • Greg Your straw man is on fire! NASA is under the threat being required to perform as its original intent. Imagine the trauma NASA focusing on Deep Space instead of Muslim Participation Medals? When it comes to CO2 as a pollutant the baby is the bathwater. Your temple to Gaia is on fire!

      • Greg: I am in favor of throwing out the whole mess and starting over. The data we have is so “adjusted” that I would have failed any science class for attempting such a thing on a class lab. If we are to effectively study climate, there has to be uniform ways to collect data, the equipment available to analyze the data at a resolution that is more that just a SWAG, quality contol rules have to exist and be enforced and all politics taken out of the research. The precautionary principle needs to be ditched—it could get warmer, it could get colder. It also needs to be recognized that no matter how good the data, etc, unless there is 100% correlation, there will always be a lot of uncertainty in any predictions. “Chicken little” behavior must be reigned in and people need to understand that a trend line is not an actual opening to the future, but just a stastistical construct. The future will still be unknown. The best we can do with good data is identify things that may need changed or otherwise addressed.

      • Greg says “Without continual measurement of climate …”
        If anyone can show me that the State Department was using billions of dollars to actually take measurements of anything in the climate system I’ll eat my hat!

        Seriously, can you believe the massive amounts of money that was pouring into TOTALLY unrelated departments in the name of climateerism?

      • The whole of NASA does not need defunding because of a small group of political activists have been allowed to run GISS for the last three decades under administrations of both parties.
        ====
        Greg, I agree with what you are saying overall….but there are other groups collecting temperature data…and even NASA admits those other data sets are more accurate
        Problem is NASA’s data is so corrupted it’s beyond repair….it has been retroactively adjusted to the point it no longer represents reality and there’s no way to back up

        people have forgotten this already…..

        NASA Data Worse Than Climate-Gate Data, GISS Admits

        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/30/nasa-data-worse-than-climate-gate-data-giss-admits/

      • Greg I am afraid you will find that many many skeptics are , in fact, anti science.

        They will kill Landsat and every other satillite that observes our environment simply because NASA
        runs it. They really dont care about data or science or fact.

        WUWT is the only place you will find these people.

      • This is the creep that happened: Nasa sends satellites up to space. The various functions and purposes on those satellites can belong to other agencies. Nasa thought they could get in on the money slop flowing to those other agencies so they duplicated what those agencies collect from satellites. The result is that we fund every Tom, Dick, and Jane Federal agency that is ALSO collecting climate data.

        First, at the Federal level, Trump should look for and slash duplication of any research topic that has crept out of its original agency to other federal agencies.

        Second, he should help pass a federal funding law that prevents funding of topic research that is already assigned to a single agency.

        Third, any tax-payer federally funded research not directly related to national defense, should be forever tagged open access. That includes the data, methods, etc and any reports presented of the research.

        Fourth, each agency should send a representative to an annual Grand Rounds sharing session so that Federal agencies are kept up to date on what each one is doing. Top secret activities excluded of course.

        End Federal agency boundary creep and duplication. Redraw the boundaries, narrowly define all charters, and stop funding proposed activities outside each charter.

      • + 100 A generally good idea. The other thing the US government should do is declassify parts of research done under CIA or NRO contracts. I saw a rumor that many of the problems with the Hubble telescope satellite were problems long ago solved with spy satellites.

      • @Steven Mosher

        The whole “anti-science” meme is ridiculous. Get off your high horse. “Science” is much bigger than climate science. Climate science is an embarrassment to science. If you and your ilk stuck to trying to learn and understand the nature of things instead of always trying to link any and all phenomenon to CO2, and then publicly advocate for political solutions, then your “science” could possibly be taken seriously. We are anti-politicized science, not anti-science.

      • Satellites currently give the best actual data, because they sample huge volumes of the atmosphere and a larger fraction of it, while any surface sample is essentially a point measurement strongly affected by local conditions. Roy Spencer’s work at UAH, which I cite regularly to AGW true believers, comes from AMSU measuring instruments on (gasp) NASA’s AQUA satellites, among others.

        It’s obviously true that NASA jumped into the climate business because that’s where the money was, but at least the data collection should continue. All that’s really necessary is to stop the suppression of grant money for honest skeptics analyzing it, and let the scientific method do its work. The human influence on climate is equally obviously not zero. I personally believe it is about 1/3 of the IPCC’s claims, but that’s still not trivial. We *do* need to reduce the error bars surrounding climate sensitivity estimates, and we can only do that with data.

        Preferably not data forced to match the model instead of the other way around, of course…

      • Greg, NASA should be determining how to protect the earth from the next asteroid strike as well as taking us into space. I like the way Australia handled AGW, “The science is settled we will not fund AGW research.”

      • NASA should absolutely be taking temperature measurements of:

        Mars
        Jupiter
        Saturn
        Moons
        Asteroids

        As for earth, that is why we have NOAA.

      • “They really dont care about data or science or fact. ”

        Mosh again trying to sell his lemon.

        You are the one with no science degree, just a salesman’s job.

        You wouldn’t know science or fact if it kicked up out the door.. which I hope it does very shortly !!

      • WUWT is the only place you will find these people.

        >¿<

        Botwhopper, (no, that's not a typo) And Then There's Physics, Tamino's, Real Climate AND Real Science, Jo Nova, and even Climate Ect. Have a heaping helping of science illiterate cheerleaders of one or both camps.

        And if you think the phenomenon is restricted to climate science you haven't been around nearly as much as you make out. Everything from quantum science to medicine is surrounded by cheerleaders who have no idea how anything works, yet think they are qualified to decide which theories are proven laws and which are pseudo science.

        So don't shake your pom poms at me, Mosher. I stopped being impressed by your drive-by over a year ago.

      • “The whole sceptical argument has been based on climate data.”

        This is why skeptics haven’t prevailed yet. The climate data is too distorted to be reliable and too fungible for arriving at conclusions. The alarmists will simply point to another data set if one doesn’t get the answer they want to see. For example, GISSTEMP instead of satellite measurements. Skeptics must focus on the physics which unambiguously precludes a climate sensitivity even as high as the lower limit claimed by the IPCC.

        The existence of trends in anomalies tells us nothing about what’s causing that trend or if the anomalous trend is in the data, in the analysis or is a natural variation. The most useful property of anomaly analysis is to identify anomalous (bad) data and anomalous (bad) analysis. The prevailing assumption is that if we see a trend, it must be anthropogenic and only an understanding of the physics can turn this around.

        Properly challenge the climate sensitivity with the laws of physics and this whole mess will be settled very quickly. Physics can’t be tweaked in order to validate expectations, nor is it fungible like data.

        Start with an ideal BB whose sensitivity is exact, extend it to a BB surface with a gray body atmosphere whose sensitivity is also exact. Then challenge any warmist scientist to connect the dots between this model that accurately reflects the relationship between the input energy and surface temperature and whose sensitivity is unambiguously capped at about 0.3C per W/m^2 to the presumed sensitivity of between 0.4 and 1.2 C per W/m^2. I can absolutely guarantee that they will be unable to do this and will be forced to back off the claims of an absurdly high sensitivity.

      • Steven Mosher: “Greg I am afraid you will find that many many skeptics are , in fact, anti science.”

        No Mosher, that’s you.

        They are against “climate” science, the utterly unscientific, corrupt, smoke-and-mirrors fraud that pays your crust.

        That isn’t anti-science at all, very much the opposite in fact.

      • So let’s not throw the baby out with the bath water.
        ===
        I think this is mostly a bunch of hysterics over nothing.

        Looks like NASA will continue to collect raw data….which they will hand over to another agency to process as it applies to “climate science”
        NASA will no longer be responsible for adjusting/homogenizing/fudging the raw data.

        NASA Earth Science

        The purpose of NASA’s Earth science program is to develop a scientific understanding of Earth’s system and its response to natural or human-induced changes, ……………

        https://science.nasa.gov/earth-science

        Principals governing IPCC work….

        .to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change,

      • “The whole sceptical argument has been based on climate data.”

        This is why skeptics haven’t won yet. Focus on the physics not the data. The data is too unreliable for conclusions and too fungible. If the answer isn’t what they want to see, they use another data set (GISSTEMP instead of satellite data). The physics is completely deterministic and tells us in no uncertain terms that the sensitivity must be less than the lower limit claimed by the IPCC.

        Looking for trends, or the absence of trends in the data presumes that CO2 is causing the trend. It tells us nothing about whether the anomalous trend is in the data, in the analysis or in the imagination of the data manipulator, much less what’s causing the trend.

      • How precious, Mosh.

        (1) The Landsat program covers many areas. It didn’t originate as a climate-research tool, and that is not its purpose today.
        (2) You love to show disdain for RSS on this board…but now you care about satellite data?
        (3) You’re so in-tune with satellite data for climate research that you’ve been caught repeatedly referring to UAH as UHA.

        Your drive-bys here offer nothing.

      • Greg

        Sit down. Take a deep breath.

        Nobody is proposing to defund the whole of NASA (about $20B); just the $2B for climate (which most foolish folks like myself assumed was being done by NOAA).

      • I am afraid you will find that many many skeptics are , in fact, anti science.
        ===============
        nonsense. many many skeptics are pro science. what we are is “anti” is belief posing as science.

        skepticism is at the very heart of science. it is fundamental to good science. it is fair to say that you cannot be a good scientists without being skeptical.

        your failure to understand this most basic truth about science shows in the nonsensical postings you are famous for.

      • You left out CRN as another one that is very worthwhile to keep going. Aside from that I agree with your take on it. I think some others misread or didn’t understand your original statement.

      • I have to agree with Greg. Unless done carefully, Trump could go too far in draining the swamp. Basic scientific research is the best bargain we will ever get. The people and the infrastructure which collects raw data is absolutely critical to preserve, and indeed, improve. I do believe that was Greg’s point.

      • O M G. Our resident English major (Mosh) has the AUDACITY to criticize WUWT denizens regarding science. Why don’t you get the hell a science education, otherwise shut your pie-hole. We don’t want to listen to your gibberish..

    • It is about much more than just the money, $13.5B is only $44 / citizen / year. This is about about the sovereignty of the individual, the heart of American. exceptionalism. Three famous quotes are relevant here:

      1. Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.’ (Eric Hoffer)

      2. The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
      (H.L. Mencken)

      3. “Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”( Benjamin Franklin)

      The CAGW machine must be completely disassembled, as it is an existential threat to the nation.

      • Nice to see Eric Hoffer quoted. Reading his work “The True Believer” proved extremely useful in understanding the kind of mindless ideologues you see in everyday life, from AGW cultists and Greens to other members of the Far Left Menagerie.

      • How much are the CAGW subsidies? How much are the immoral transfers from taxpayers to the “Green” boondoggles? When it comes to Money let’s go after the real fraud. The true costs of these government entities is in their useless and destructive regulations that they support and/or produce.

      • “The CAGW machine must be completely disassembled annihilated, as it is an existential threat to the nation humanity.” FTFY. Otherwise, comment is 100% spot on. And an enthusiastic second WRT The True Believer.

      • Indeed, it is totally inadequate. A while ago I calculated that each ARGO float, IIRC, covers about 4 million Olympic-sized swimming pools.

      • ARGO has also been corrupted by selectively removing float data without double blind experimental controls. As a result confirmation bias has crept into the dataset.

        The problem is that the other Willis became convinced that the readings were too high, because they didn’t match the surface records. This is faulty reasoning, because it then ties the ARGO data to the surface data. If the surface data is wrong, these errors will then propagate into the ARGO data.

        We have seen this problem time and time again. You cannot look at the data and then decide if it needs adjustment, because this will introduce subconscious bias into the results. The adjustments have to be done with double blind controls. Otherwise the end result is garbage. It matches what you believe to be true, not what is actually true.

    • Thanks.

      The sooner someone – May, Trump, Le Pen, Grillo, whoever, gets to work on what Governments are a c t u a l l y paying taxpayers’ money for – the better.

      Can you guess who is not holding their breath?
      Auto.

    • Mosher,
      Keep knocking those straw-men down if it makes you feel better. But don’t for a minute think that anybody believes your obvious lies. Nobody here has called for getting rid of LANDSAT or any of the other earth observing sats, and you know it. Stop projecting your fears onto us and go cry in your safe room.

    • Well, this could be a good start. Add to that all the Federal money going to Universities and Colleges to fund far-left climate programs. Add in Federal money going to cities to push climate related regulations. Let them live on donations from the Tom Steyers and George Soros of the world. I just wish we could also claw back a lot of wasted money spent based on lies and false data.

  2. “or a very welcome new year bonus for hard pressed taxpaying Americans.”

    +++Eric Worrall

    That money belongs in our pockets, and nowhere else.

  3. I promised myself this year to not gloat… but they’re making it SO EASY.
    First the crying, then the temper tantrums, then the street demonstrations, the assaults, then the climate people started “warning” Trump not to cut their budget, now they’re panicking that the entire planet is in jeopardy, and on it goes.
    Too easy… I’m having a great November!

    • Me too. I’ve cried, screamed with laughter, slapped the wife’s thigh. Best year ever. Only one thing left to absolutely make my decade : the closure of the climate impacts unit at UKMO and closure of climate monitoring unit in France

      • We’ll see about Mrs May. Here in France, the election program of presidential candidate Francois Fillon [Conservative] states that he intends to do away with policies based on the “precautionary principle”.

        Most voters will probably not understand this, but the “precautionary principle” is a concept from medicine high jacked by the Green blob and made into one core drivers of environmentalism and the CAGW/CACC hysteria.

        We’ll have to see what he actually does in the event he gets elected next May. Meanwhile he has quietly pointed out the unfolding slow mo “energiewende” train wreck in Germany and the French Right in general has re-affirmed its strong commitment to France’s nuclear energy sector [75-80% of electricity here comes from nuclear].

    • What tickles my funny bone is how many Climate Faithful Blogs have recently announced that they will no longer allow ‘denier’ comments. The panic and paranoia have never been higher. ^¿^

      • schitzree, Oh, but don’t you know that they are so tolerant and “diverse” didn’t you know that? And it must be extremely frightening to live in an echo chamber. It can (and has) cause irreparable psychological damage. ( hearing voices saying the same things over and over again).

  4. Don’t sell the fur before shooting the bear. The details where and how much to cut must be examined meticulously.

    • Sometimes it is easier and much more cost effective to bulldoze the entire structure and start again,rather than trying to salvage a rotting ,dilapidated wreck.
      Plus there is less chance of contamination of the new work from the old structure.

      • Reminds me of a line from that old American series M.A.S.H. A visiting doctor sees the 4077th and states; “Personally, I’d call in an air strike and start from scratch!”. Loved that show…

      • Contamination is an issue here, but I think that “chopping off the heads” will do to get the rest back in line. A pause, as suggested by Jon, with the rest of the hands at half-pay might be best. Better to keep them on the payroll thus ensuring at least a minimum of loyalty.

    • Also, when the real problem is a lack of quality data – and a lack of quality organisations to create a reliable metric of global temperature – what you also need to do is have a realistic budget to create an alternative to the low grade dross we currently have.

      And given that the new alternative quality system has to be in place before the end of Trump’s first term – there is precious little time to do it. Otherwise a new administration can just go back to using the fabricated data & employ the same charlatans again.

      • The US CRN exists. ARGO exists. The satellites exist. The rest of what exists is of unknown and highly suspect quality; and, has been “adjusted” until it is barely recognizable.

  5. ‘Though they’re a relatively small piece of a federal budget that is in excess of $1 trillion,’
    This amount would solve the sanitation problems of most of Africa.
    It will build up the decaying turnpikes and railroads of the US.
    The wind subsidies referred to above, $12 billion, should be grandfathered and withdrawn from new players.

  6. “that’s $13.5 billion”

    I’d be using to boost the Military climate-related budget, they’re going to need it.

  7. NASA
    2017 climate-related budget: $1.9 billion

    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
    2017 climate-related research and development: $190 million

    Just curious why the “SPACE” people have a climate budget that is an order of magnitude larger than the “ATMOSPHERIC” people.

    • What I want to know is why the SPACE agency isn’t using the SPACE based measurements for their temperature sets, and instead just reprocess NOAA’s ground and ocean measurements.

      Do we really need two government agencies playing ‘who can adjust the data the highest’?

      • schitzree: “What I want to know is why the SPACE agency isn’t using the SPACE based measurements for their temperature sets”

        Good question!

  8. What about Musk, Tesla, solar panels, wind turbines, federal research funding etc.? We must be into hundreds of billions during the next four years if Trump does not step in with a STOP sign.

    • Exactly. Stop all subsidies and the subsidy farmers like Musk and the subsidy farms marked with windmills and solar panels will cease to exist over night. The huge expense of setting up a grid to deal with infrequent variable power supplies can be saved too. No problems with individuals or companies attempting to ‘save’ money by personal use of solar or windpower, but no subsidies or ‘sales to the grid’ of surplus as that really means the other electricity consumers being forced to pay.

  9. renewable energy rivals the arms industry as the most expensive industry that is entirely supported by government pay cheques.

  10. The climate imperialists are showing their increasingly irrational reality rejecting anti-science extremism. Mostly it’s fun to watch. However when the opportunity costs of the time and money that has been squandered on their self righteous social mania is considered, it is not so humorous. From Obama down, this Administration has wasted precious resources fabricating and sustaining a crisis that only exists in their minds. And of course the rent seekers, opportunists and flat out con-artists are attracted to vulnerable people like our current President like sharks to a bleeding baby seal. Except this group of wounded fanatics not only self inflicted the wounds, they have dragged us into the mess they have created.

    • “From Obama down, this Administration has wasted precious resources fabricating and sustaining a crisis that only exists in their minds.”

      Um, and in the minds of corporate America, virtually 100% of which believes it is real. And not, it’s not just companies that stand to make money off AGW, like GE with wind turbines. It’s Microsoft, and Walmart and Starbucks and Disney, and virtually all of the Fortune 1000.

      • I can agree, and Crony Capitalism has unavoidable consequences. All forms of government practice some form of capitalism. Look no further than the North American Hutterite Colony’s use of collective ownership. Their Constitutional foundation is irrevocable…..a non living applied application
        law.

      • Um, Chris, virtually 100% of corporate America would be out of business if they used IPCC climate models for business planning. Real business people know CAGW is unfounded, but the ones making a profit off it are “in the bag” big time.

      • Um, and in the minds of corporate America, virtually 100% of which believes it is real

        No, what 100% of corporate America believes in is PROFIT. And they know they can pander to the Climate Faithful without it usually costing them a dime. They sure know that publicly criticizing the believers will have detrimental effects on their business. Leftists never miss a chance to punish the unbelievers regardless of how little effect that unbelief might actually have on their plans.

        Leftists always assume everyone agrees with them, because everyone knows that letting a leftist know you don’t agree is asking for a hiss fit. It’s one of the reasons they had the polls for the election so wrong. ~¿~

      • It is in the interests of many corporations to support a “Carbon Tax”. It’s simple math. Markups are often based on cost. Industry does NOT pay a Carbon Tax. It is the end user, Joe Public. Often things like a Carbon Tax are not even a “flow through”. It gets put in the cost column and included in the base cost with a mark up added to satisfy the return on investment of the shareholders. A so called “flow through” of 10% gets a multiplier on it and ends up INCREASING corporate profits while the corporation can claim environmental sensitivity thus satisfying all sides of the debate.

    • Yes sir. Non elected super oligarch ruling class – UN. The EU much the same. This body of good intentions has a very poor record giving out donated food and medicine without corruption of sorts. And the class of UN elites want a standing army/navy/air force.

  11. The irony is all the arguments about ‘it isn’t warming’ use the data that now won’t be produced because it has been cut for political reasons.

    Also, if another country argues that X or Y is happening – perhaps it slaps a tariff on Us exports as a result – then the US will say ‘but our data – doesn’t show anything’.

    And if this is/was a fraud, you are just going to bury the evidence? Let it go?

    I think there must be an impartial examination of the climate data before anything gets scrapped.

    and when there is, you’ll find it is perfectly valid – and then what?

    • “Griff November 24, 2016 at 2:38 am

      The irony is all the arguments about ‘it isn’t warming’…”

      The irony is *YOU* miss the point. The earth is, and has been, warming since the last glaciation. The claim that, ~3% of the ~400ppm/v CO2 is *DRIVING* warming is tosh!

      • Griff, come now, you can’t seriously think any country will invite a trade war with the US.

        Well, I wouldn’t want the US to cut entirely, but I don’t think it should fund the development of green energy in other countries or even its own country. However, what it should do is spend spend spend on actually recording data. Those, like me, who think this is extremely over hyped need data to show that, not models. Cutting the funding to data sources and also not creating new ones wouldn’t be helpful for that course, it would be detrimental.

      • Pardon, but the planet has been warming since the Little Ice Age, but cooling since the Holocene Optimum, at the end of the last major glaciation. It’s quite a bit cooler now, than during the H.O. That knowledge really puts such propaganda as “…hottest year ever recorded”, into perspective.

        All agencies mentioned above, hammer the public relentlessly with such doublespeak and threads (ropes and cables) run throughout the federal bureaucracies. They all need “climate” de- funded and the purveyors of the lies need fired and in some cases, jailed.
        All propagandists here such as Griff, need some figurative tar and feathers, so lay on. If it turns out they’re on a gov’t payroll and have been paid for their lies (and a study of their rhetoric comes close to proof,) well…

    • Just enjoy the Holocene Inter-glacial whilst it lasts! After all, the last four Inter-glacials dating back 500,000 years were all warmer than today!

    • An “impartial examination of the climate data” can only be made after an impartial assembly of unaltered data has been made. Then let the data tell the story, not the other way around.
      CAGW has been the greatest hoax in history.
      Bob Hoye

    • Griff, you bozo….. NASA will still be into the space stuff.. you know like satellites etc.

      You know, the ones they currently totally ignore for temperature?

      Its just the climate data fabricators that will be having to find park benches…

      ….. so move over and give them space.

    • China,Russia and many others are skeptics. China is irritated because the Paris accord is a competitive advantage and it will now be gone.
      If the data is looked at from the valid satellite data from 1975 to 2000 there was a case for serious concern that we had a problem, since then the models don’t stick to the data.
      Further, unmolested data shows the “C” has fallen of the “CAGW” thus action needs to focus on efficiency and mitigation not economic inversion, and we need to watch this closely and we get better every year at recording the climate. Poorly constructed data adjustments are a symbol of the issues in science.

    • “and when there is, you’ll find it is perfectly valid”

      More bollox.

      How much are you paid to produce this guff, Grifter?

    • The irony is all the arguments about ‘it isn’t warming’ use the data that now won’t be produced….

      English isn’t your first language is it?……the word you are looking for is justice

    • Interesting Griff!
      Are you saying the examination of the climate data hasn’t been impartial up til now?

  12. In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.

    Likewise, if Donald Trump leaves the US without the necessary quality data network on climate so that a few con men can again take crap data and fiddle it to show whatever they want is happening with the climate to support their eco-politics then Trump will have failed.

    At a rough estimate, a world wide network of high quality climate monitoring stations will cost of the order of $1billion. And the kind of people that network would employ would be world class instrumentation engineers – in other words, the type of people who are normal properly sceptical of the climate alarmist junk.

    So, yes there may be $billions that can be easily cut. But some of it will be important research and In addition there needs to be proper investment in new quality data gathering to prevent this scam re-emerging in any future administration

    • For info, I’ve published my own proposals for the future:
      A discussion proposal for the future

      The key things are:
      1. we invest in high quality data gathering
      2. That we create a firewall between those gathering the data and those that create models. This is so that never again will we have a group compiling the data that feels it is easier to change the data to fit their models, than admit the models are wrong. The two areas must be completely separate.
      3. Reforms to the IPCC – to remove all activists – to have paid scientists (so we get contribution by quality rather than interest/activism) and the remit is changed to monitoring climate and assessing the credibility of models (rather than as now activism on global and never once admitting how badly the models have done)

      • Scottish Sceptic, I read your proposal and I totally agree on all points. The US has made a good start in regard to climate monitoring with the deployment of the US Climate Reference Network (USCRN). We need a World CRN that includes ocean and polar monitors. Much easier said than done, but the USCRN should provide a good example for land climate monitoring stations worldwide.
        https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/crn/

    • A few months back a comment was made on WUWT suggesting that a smallish network of satellites could be orbited to collect data of energy leaving the planet across all frequencies worldwide. This could be done for a small fraction of what government spends on climate baloney and once compared to well established data on incident energy any question of Earth’s energy balance and the pretence of model veracity would be ended forever. That would be a worthwhile task for NASA. The fact that they have not done this says everything about the political and unscientific ( antiscientific?) agenda in play.

  13. Trump should put out the order to have Gavin Schmidt and Kevin Trenberth to dismantle the climate apparatus at GISS and NASA. That way they will be doing something useful while repaying some of the money they have stolen.

  14. Give NOAA a raise and make them the designated climate researcher, cut the climate budget out of all other departments. Researching the climate is a valid and useful thing to do and seems to fit well with NOAA’s purpose. Spending money on attempted mitigation is premature and ineffective. No current climate-related effect is significant and harmful enough to spend money on adaptation.

  15. I support an organization change or restructuring, to switch NASA earth data gathering activities to NOAA and a selected group of universities and consultants. This data is extremely valuable.

    What needs to be reduced is the political science activities in all agencies. And that includes avoiding the creation of a counterpart which attacks all science activities if they happen to step on certain toes.

    Therefore NOAA, in its role as as climate data and interpreter center, needs to make sure it funds satellites to continue observing the earth from space, the Argo buoy data needs to be continued, and there’s a need to have full data acquisition of items which will let us understand the carbon cycle and how it can evolve.

    • Fernando, I agree, but we should realize that there is no such thing as political science. That is an oxymoron.

      • Bubba Cow you may be wrong about that. Politics is the science of extracting the most blood – meaning money – from the turnips -meaning citizens – that voted for you.

  16. We need to put someone in place to undo the adjustments.

    It might not be feasible but it would be nice to be able to force the people who did the adjustments to defend them or face firing with cause when they can’t. That way we won’t have to pay them anything when they leave.

    Four years is not such a long time. I wonder how it might be possible to keep all these climate programs from ever coming back.

    I predict that there will be a lot of shredding of paper and email servers. Someone should start a court case and get a court order mandating that all that stuff should be preserved. That way the shredders could face some serious consequences.

    • The key to stop them coming back are:
      1. To ensure we have quality data – that cannot be tampered with – run by people committed to quality and integrity. In other words, do the job properly – and that means spending the money to do the job properly.
      2. To take the moral high ground – to do the best climate research and show that the best climate research (in the hope that the best research will not support the climate paranoia we have now). Otherwise, we simply leave a vacuum in climate research which will be refilled by the activists as soon as Trump leaves office.
      3. To change the attitude of academia – which probably means getting rid of schemes which promote the quantity of papers, and focus instead on quality.
      4. Reform the IPCC
      5. To cut funding to the Green groups and the eco-blob in general – which use this money to lobby to get themselves more money based on eco-scares.
      6. To investigate and if necessary eliminate foreign government money going into the green-blob (in the case of oil countries – to prevent the US being self-dependent in oil, in the case of China – to create a public dislike of manufacturing through the proxy of CO2)

  17. It would be great to see those cuts and many more from a Trump administration. I do hope that “The Donald” can pull it off. But let us not forget that there is so much wrong with the Empire that it will be hard to get to everything — at least in the depth that it will take. Plus, the man has not even been sworn in yet and that is not a complete certainty.

    After the first Reagan administration some insider wrote a book that I think was called “Steering the Elephant” in which he recounted how difficult (impossible) it was to change D.C. due to entrenched bureaucrats and special interests. And the 80s was a time that the cultural Marxists had not yet taken over most of the State and the Media.

    The election of Donald Trump is a great first step, but it is only a first step. It took generations to get to the police state we live in today, and it will take a long time to get back to any semblance of liberty.

    May God help us in these times.

    • Other countries are free to spend their money however they want, and we can spend our freed-up money on infrastructure. Win-win.

    • Other countries will supply the essential data.
      ===
      I know you know better…..oh the drama……like you think there’s only one in this country

      • Only one country has a network of high quality near-surface temperature measuring stations which incorporate multiple sensors and collect data which do not “need adjustment”.

    • Gareth you twerp,….. NASA will still be into the space stuff.. you know like satellites etc.

      You know, the ones they currently totally ignore for temperature?

      Its just the climate data fabricators that will be having to find park benches…

      ….. be nice and share your cardboard blankets with them.

  18. O/T BBC lunchtime news announces that research scientists studying sea-ice in Antarctica have concluded that it’s about the same today as it was a hundred years ago! This is based on the recorded information by many explorers recorded at the time of their studies/expeditions. However, they say that Arctic sea-ice is variable because lots of Hooman beans live in the northeren hemisphere!!! Something’s afoot me thinks!!! Is it possible said “scientists” are seeking a “get-out-jail-free” card at some future point?

    • Well, the records of explorers, whalers, soviet Union, cold war subs and all other sources have been examined and they say that arctic sea ice is much, much less than it was 150 years ago.

      This summary article links to the detailed research:
      https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-piecing-together-arctic-sea-ice-history-1850

      This concludes:
      “there is no point in the past 150 years where sea ice extent is as small as it has been in recent years. Second, the rate of sea ice retreat in recent years is also unprecedented in the historical record. And, third, the natural fluctuations in sea ice over multiple decades are generally smaller than the year-to-year variability.2

      so, if this sort of research is right about Antarctica, it must be right about the arctic too, eh?

      and of course the arctic sea ice is at a record low for 150 years (at least) for this time of year at present and actually melted a bit in the last fortnight:

      • As always Griff you don’t mention the whole story. Of course the arctic ice was greater 150 years ago. That was the end of the little ice age. Why do you think it was called the “Little Ice Age”, maybe because it was cold? The fact that it is warmer now should not be a surprise.

      • Time for Griff to do a stint in Siberia… he loves the cold, hates the warm….. right Griff ?!

        Here is a challenge.

        No heating all winter.. I dare you.

      • Every time I see a reference to NSIDC arctic sea ice as in the graph above which shows the minimum ice extent for 2016 of 4.1 million sqkm, I wonder how much politicking is involved. Danish Meteorological Institute also monitors sea ice and their calculation for minimum seas ice this year is about 5 million sqkm. With the pressure NASA has exerted on all the data, I am of the inclination to consider DMI monitoring as more accurate but maybe someone could show me otherwise.
        http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php

      • I think I’m really beginning to appreciate Griff.

        He continually tries to make documented points, only to continually run into people a lot smarter than him, who in turn, easily (laughably easily?) rebutt whatever Griff was mumbling about.

        To use language from Pat Frank’s lecture, I would class Griff as precise, but not accurate.

  19. Redirect all that funding towards Nuclear fusion, the real clean alternative energy solution. The moment a nuclear fusion reactor comes on-line, all those wind farms and solar panels become obsolete. Trump can deliver a real solution, and turn all those monstrous windfarms into eyesores and monuments to the stupidity of the politicization of science and liberal priorities.

    • Why anyone would fund pie in the sky fusion when we have multiple ordinary reactors beats me, then there is Thorium.. OK, theoretical research is fine, but why talk about it as being real? Maybe in 50 years? Maybe never?

      BTW, the LNT risk model for radiation needs modification, because low levels of radiation are good for us.

      Finding that low dose radiation (LDR) is good for you has been a shock to my system.

      A year ago I was surprised to read that a 95% reduction in all forms of cancer happened in a group of radioactive apartment blocks in Taiwan, about 1983 to 1995.(gamma radiation from scrap steel that included one or more X ray units? (Google radioactive Taiwan apartments for articles and papers)).

      Thousands of published papers and articles back up the benefits of LDR.

      http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/nuclear.html?LNT%20Myth

    • Governments have proven they can waste any amount of money you throw at nuclear fusion research. Given them $1,000,000,000,000 for fusion research, and they’d announce that their gold-plated white elephant might be ready for testing in 2090.

      • If you persistently attempt to do a job in the most awkward, most expensive manner possible, then you may eventually convince the public – and even scientists- that the task is impossible. I sometimes wonder if that is the intention, that vested interests in the political sphere don’t want fusion to succeed, so…

        The Farnsworth Fusor produced fusion decades ago. Its successor the Polywell could well prove to be a commercial success if the backing were available for a pilot-plant sized test. It isn’t, despite being a tiny fraction of the money needed for a Tokamak.

        Meanwhile almost all of the money has been poured into Tokamaks. A simply colossal machine and very expensive dead end, because even if it works it will only support D-T fusion, which has numerous disadvantages over D-T or P-B fusion.

        The Polywell has already DEMONSTRATED D-D fusion, and is technically capable of the preferable P-B reaction given a vessel and insulators large enough to withstand the voltages required. (about half a megavolt, not much beyond the scale of large Grid interconnectors, and there are plenty of existing firms capable of doing this kind of engineering)

        So no, I don’t think fusion is impossible. Actually it’s been done. Just, not in a way or on a scale that provides useful energy.

    • The wind farms and solar panels were a mistake from the outset.

      5 mW wind turbine, avg output 1/3 nameplate, 20 yr life, electricity @ wholesale 3 cents per kwh produces $8.8E6.
      Installed cost @ $1.7E6/mW = $8.5E6. Add the cost of standby CCGT for low wind periods. Add the cost of land lease, maintenance, administration.

      Solar voltaic and solar thermal are even worse.

      The dollar relation is a proxy for energy relation. Bottom line, the energy consumed to design, manufacture, install, maintain and administer these renewables exceeds the energy they produce in their lifetime.

      Without the energy provided by other sources these renewables could not exist.

  20. “Donald Trump, in an effort to cut spending, is likely going to slash some important climate change programs…”

    “Donald Trump, in an effort to cut spending, is likely going to slash some unimportant climate change programs…”

    There, fixed it for them.

  21. It is totally inappropriate that an organization, such as the Federal govt, which is politically controlled and run by people unqualifed to practice science, should have such an enormous influence, by rite of their enormous expenditures, on a subject such as climatology.
    Nor should the govt operate a propaganda machine, such as the PBS television network., either.
    I’m astounded that people who point to companies that fund research into climatology, automatically
    assume an attempt to steer the science to predestined objectives, while the Fed govt (and the United Nations, which is practically synonomous with incompetence) , with infinitley greater resources, is doing just that. And doing it thru multiple channels, not just those mentioned here – grants to universities is a large and important portion and has been documented as political and far from partial in determining which research gets done.One can slant the game your way simply by producing only research carried out by your like minded friends as you can by outright lying.
    Science does not make any sense when conducted in this manner. It need to be open and a freely
    discussed and subject to skeptical questions and counter-research, which is NOT happening in the case of global warming. Global warming has all of the earmarks of a fundamentalist, primitive religion, not a science. In general, a govt has no business nor qualifications for doing science.
    Politics is NOTHING like science , as we can see by the statements of Kerry and Obama. Neither has ever set foot in a science classroom and each approaches the issue as anything but a scientific issue. On the basis of established facts, no scientist would ever be as certain of climate events 100 years in the future as these two yokels. But there biggest idiocy is in not realizing that technology is inexorably leading the world to lower carbon emissions -via EVs and molten salt reactors. Everything they are attempting to accomplish by pouring billions into totally inferior grid power suppliers is sheer waste. They are rushing to change the energy picture before the technology is here, although it is very close at hand. They are dummies – a political Mutt and Jeff. But that’s no big revelation.

  22. The National Science Foundation funds some of the madness. They and the EPA also fund Climate Change Education. Also, the IRS has extended tax credits for some wind farms far beyond the legal deadline. This would be a good time to start looking “under the covers”.

  23. Impressive or not, $13.5 billion is less than 0.4% of federal spending. It’s even only ~ 2% of the projected deficit.

    Even if it is “climate-related”, that does not make it worthless. Bear in mind, that many good programs are classified as “climate-related” so that we can satisfy climate advocates on how much we are spending on the climate.

    The DOE’s $8.5 billion is spent on nuclear power research and energy efficiency research. Plus, NREL conducts research on improving the electrical grid. The Interior department spends money on protecting the coastline from hurricanes. Slate calls this “climate-related”, but the cause of the hurricanes doesn’t matter. We’re still going to have them.

      • Easily.

        It’s all through education systems on the public dime for general leftist propaganda reasons going well beyond “climate” directly. Just one of many areas where the agenda filters in.

      • Evidence for that assertion?

        Numerous testable, verifiable observations + common sense = sufficient evidence for the folks paying the freight.

        But take the load of the backs of taxpayers and watch how quickly the ‘dangerous man-made global warming’ false alarm collapses.

        It’s all about the fire hose of public ‘climate’ money, Chris. In other words, the taxpayers’ money — and how self-serving bureaucrats and their pals in the .edu factories can keep their ‘green’ gravy train from being derailed by The Donald…

      • Again — it’s all funny money. People take budget items that we already spend and classified them as “climate” projects to show the world that we care. They will reclassify them as wall assessment projects in the Trump administration or something like that.

  24. Other than NOAA, none of those departments and agencies have any business doing climate research, data collection or advocacy, and not even NOAA should be doing advocacy. NOAA obviously needs space-based assets and operations to do their legitimate job. Any assets and operations NASA holds regarding weather and climate need to be transferred to NOAA, and NASA’s only involvement should be to get satellites into orbit–if the NOAA can’t find a better/cheaper ride for them.

    NOAA’s budget MAY need to increase to take over whatever NASA is doing in the NOAA sandbox, but they need to rededicate themselves to real research.

    It might be a good start to require that NOAA put at least as much research time and budget into studying NATURAL processes of climate change as anthropomorphic climate change.

  25. Bauer (2004) proposes that there be mandatory funding of contrarian research, along with a science court set up to adjudicate technical controversies. In addition, science journalism needs to investigate established orthodoxies more vigorously.

    Pollack (2005) proposes several remedies to the competitive peer review grant system. Government should establish forums where the most significant challenge paradigms can compete openly with their orthodox counterparts in civilized debate. Open-minded “generalists” who have no stake in the outcome should adjudicate, like a jury does in law. Pools of money should be set aside to support multiple grants on selected schools of thought. Training grants that encourage curiosity and thinking outside the box should be made available. And the NIH should provide lifetime support for a select cohort of Dionysian scientists.

    The peer review grant system stifles innovation and protects reigning paradigms, right or wrong. The 60-year experiment of “Advancing Health through Peer Review,” the NIH Center for Scientific Review’s slogan, has failed. It needs to be dismantled. Tax-funded research would be better conducted and more productive if government allocated funds directly to universities and foundations to use as they see fit for advancement of the biomedical and physical sciences.

    • what then is better than peer review?

      ‘Publish anything’?

      The discredited research on vaccines and autism – how would we identify bogus research without any peer review?

      • “Science is not about consensus. It’s about disproof, disbelief and skepticism. It’s not about consensus. When you’ve got consensus, you’ve got trouble”

      • “The discredited research on vaccines and autism – how would we identify bogus research without any peer review?”
        How do we identify bogus research WITH peer review? Or do you claim that ALL published research published on the topic of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming is just perfect?

      • An issue is what purposes that “peer review” serve or served. I think at least one is obsolete.
        1 To conserve the cost of publication and distribution. Obviously not an issue with the internet and the ability to do desktop publication in the recent past.
        2 To conserve the reputation of the publisher. That a certain individual or group has read the article, and considers it worth publishing. Reputation is an ongoing thing, subject to change every time one encounters the entity. Which ties into the last point
        3 To conserve the time of the prospective reader. People have limited time to read studies, and tend to rely on the past performance of the publisher (publisher used broadly, in this sense, Anthony Watts is a publisher), for what is worth reading.

      • how would we identify bogus research without any peer review?…

        Show of hands….who thinks Griff is really this dense?

        No peer review identifies bogus research

      • In working for over 40 years in healthcare and reading substantial amounts of research, I have never found any genuine link between Autism and Vaccinations. However I have seen substantial amounts of good peer reviewed literature that shows absolutely no link.
        It’s therefore worrying when the leader of the free world patently does not understand research or has duff advisors to update him and says:
        “Healthy young child goes to doctor, gets pumped with massive shot of many vaccines, doesn’t feel good and changes – AUTISM. Many such cases!”
        Now we all know this is nonsense, but if he believes such daft ideas, what other ideas does he believe in for which there is no evidence ? Is he going to pull the plug on research that produces vaccines which are of critical importance to a healthy population?
        If someone really believes vaccines and autism are linked, I would be very wary of the rest of their belief systems.

      • So you would rather have Hillary…
        ..who believed she was under fire when she landed in Bosnia
        Chelsea was at 9/11
        All of her parents were immigrants
        Hid her emails
        …and it was a movie

        Who’s husband used an aide for a humidor in the oval office………

        And all of that Trumps global warming for you

      • “how would we identify bogus research without any peer review?”

        Certainly NOT by peer review. !!

        Peer review in “climate science™” is more an INDICATION of bogus.

      • “how would we identify bogus research without any peer review?”

        You know squit about science, do you?

      • Hi Griff,

        There’s nothing wrong in principle with peer review. But with $billions in play every year, human ingenuity and greed combine to game the system. That’s what happened to the climate peer review process.

        Next, your peer review in medical vaccines example isn’t a very good argument because it was similarly corrupted — and if the money spigot was as wide open as it is in the ‘climate studies’ field, we would see the same level of corruption.

        Easy money has corrupted the peer review system in medical vaccines and in ‘climate studies’ (with much more public money propping up the carbon scare).

        I suspect there’s an inverse correlation between the number of federal dollars being funneled into the ‘dangerous AGW’ scare, and honest, ethical peer review. (Didn’t Dr. Michael Mann say that he would ‘re-define’ peer review? Or was that Dr. Phil Jones?)

        There’s an excellent book by Montford called The Hockey Stick Illusion [also available on the right sidebar]. It’s an easy read. When you finish, you will have a much more jaded view of the ‘climate peer review’ scam.

        It’s all based on human nature, very much like this:

        “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.”
        ~ Adam Smith (The Wealth of Nations…, 1776)

        Feeding at the public trough is as old as governments. But folks in Adam Smith’s day were pikers by comparison to the current clique of gov’t scientists.

        There has never been as lucrative a scam as this ‘dangerous AGW’ false alarm. The motive of those ethically-challenged scientists and academics is obvious: money, money, and more money… and the growing clique of DAGW scientists riding on the lucrative climate grant bandwagon will fight hard to keep the taxpayer loot rolling in. Beats working, doesn’t it?

        But what’s your motive, Griff? As with others, it seems to be ego related: you decided early on that AGW must be a big problem, and now you can’t admit that you were wrong. So you’re always trying to find factoids that confirm your belief, but you see those factoids deconstructed as soon as they’re posted.

        Instead of that, Griff, try using the Scientific Method for once. The default (starting) position is natural climate variability. If you think human emissions have altered and superseded natural variability, you need to produce measurements quantifying any such changes. Simply show us where current global temperatures exceed past extremes when CO2 was very low.

        But so far, no one has produced measurements that falsify the climate null hypothesis.

        So if you can, please post verifiable, measurable evidence showing a ‘human fingerprint’ in global temperatures, by correlating ∆CO2 with ∆T.

        That’s not asking much, is it?

      • Giff

        Might help if your vaunted “peer review” actually reviewed the research, not simply it’s political correctness.

      • Passing peer review is not the same as “proved” or “not bogus.” Science, to the degree that it is ever “proved” comes from replication and building on solid hypotheses, testing and retesting many times while remaining unfalsified. But replication and falsification of crap climate science which has passed peer review is virtually impossible. In many cases the methods are crap, GCM models are not scientific in any way, the testing for most of it isn’t even designed for falsification, statistics are frequently used inappropriately, original raw data isn’t accessible, and many of the peer reviewers were colluding or in the tank for the cause. Your side has serious problems in it’s scientific fundamentals. The sooner you see that, the sooner you understand why your continuous apologetics fail to persuade.

  26. I’m surprised that no one mentioned what I think should be the first step. The US should immediately withdraw all government support and federal involvement with the entire UN climate network: UNEP-UNFCCC-IPCC-WMO. Get right out. That layer of bureaucracy adds nothing to data collection or original science, and is totally unaccountable to anyone. Most nations have their own scientific organizations that can cooperate/coordinate with each other.

    A second step would be to decide what roles government and universities play in the area of weather/climate research. Since most science funding flows from federal coffers, a new government should redefine research priorities and restructure funding accordingly. This will be a major dragon to slay, but it must begin soon. Civil servants must do what policies dictate. It is time to direct significant funding towards efforts to identify natural drivers of climate change rather than focus on CO2. Universities rely on grants to operate the myriad of “institutes”, graduate programs and “centres of excellence” , as well as “safe spaces, counsellors, and supplies of hot chocolate” for their their students. There will be thousands of “environmental science” majors out of work, but the skills of supportive computer/statistical personnel are portable enough to adjust to new priorities. Money talks. Care should be taken not to demand anything from the universities – they must remain autonomous. If they wish to carry-on, they can be funded by the NGOs, supportive private corporations and wealthy individuals and foundations.

    • I’m surprised that no one mentioned what I think should be the first step. The US should immediately withdraw all government support and federal involvement with the entire UN climate network: Well Said R2Dtoo.

    • “(…)It is time to direct significant funding towards efforts to identify natural drivers of climate change (…) ”
      Why? Is there something wrong with the climate? Are there no real problems to throw money at?

  27. Add this up annually, along with 12 billion annual wind tax credits and in ten years, you have 250 Billion dollars. That’s half of the 500 billion proposed for infrastructure repairs. Add 200 billion taxes for corporate profit repatriation and we’re nearly done paying for the necessary improvements .

  28. Does this include funds from the Paris Acccord to help third world dictators? How much was pledged for that?

  29. ‘Donald Trump, in an effort to cut spending’

    False characterization. It isn’t about saving the money; it’s about stopping the activity.

  30. The US money waste on climate ‘action’ pales in comparison to the EU money waste on climate ‘action’.

    Stop the presses:

    Breaking news. There is a risk that 20% of the EU budget will not, I repeat will not, be spent on climate ‘action’.

    It is fortunate the EU budget auditor protects the poor EU citizens from the catastrophic consequences of not spending 20% of their budget on climate ‘action’.

    Climate Action: Aka: Is defined to be money spent on anything the cult of green define to be climate ‘action’.

    This includes but is not limited to:

    1) Biased climate ‘research’ to justify the cult of CAGW

    2) Lobbying of governments to spend more money on green scams. Support of NGO cult of CAGW lobbying groups.

    3) Conferences and more conferences

    4) The green scams themselves

    5) Carbon trading

    6) Consultants and more consultants,

    7) The millions of full time leaches, bureaucrats/lawyers/politicians/NGOs directly and indirectly connected with green scams.

    http://www.eca.europa.eu/en/Pages/NewsItem.aspx?nid=7778

    EU climate action: serious risk that 20 % spending target will not be met

    22/11/2016
    ​There is a serious risk that the EU’s target of spending at least one euro in every five of the EU budget on climate action between 2014 and 2020 will not be met, according to a new report from the European Court of Auditors. While progress has been made, the auditors warn that more effort is needed to ensure a “real shift” towards climate action.
    In order to respond to climate change, the EU agreed that at least 20% of its budget for 2014-2020 should be spent on climate action. This target is to be achieved by incorporating climate action into the various policy areas and funds in the EU budget. The auditors examined whether the target was likely to be met and whether the European Commission’s approach was likely to lead to more and better-focused funding on climate action.

    They found that ambitious work was underway and that progress had been made. However, there remains a serious risk that the 20 % target will not be met without more effort. The implementation of the target has led to more and better focus on climate action in the European Regional Development Fund and the Cohesion Fund. But in the areas of agriculture, rural development and fisheries, and in the European Social Fund, there has been no significant shift towards climate action.

  31. I certainly hope the various AGW propaganda arms in the education and university systems are justly targeted for both defunding and ostrization as well.

  32. NASA’s climate division is easily controlled by the President and is of little concern as they do not have force of law. The EPA, however, HAS force of law AND an enforcement arm. They are the real monster, with scary teeth, poisonous venom and pyro breath. We must not get distracted by all the other cleanup, requiring the Trump broom. Start with the most dangerous and work our way down.

    It may be irrelevant, as Trump’s biggest challenge may be staying alive, in a world brimming with crazy left wing alarmist and activists, who want to see him DEAD. I would be nervous just standing next to him. GK

  33. “what then is better than peer review?”

    Open review, not pal review. I want to know who the “reviewers” are and if they have any conflicts of interest. I want anyone in the field to be able to review and to answer the reviews. On-line reviews could do this easily.

    As some researchers have pointed out, the present system is authoritarian and its purpose is to enforce the prevailing group-think view. Advancement always challenges the present paradigm.

    • New paradigms go through a process of being aggressively suppressed. But the new valid and reliable ones keep rising to the surface. Eventually others take notice and grow a new paradigm that confirms the original new one. As the process continues, the old paradigm can no long keep up the aggressive suppression. Unfortunately old paradigm death sometimes happens one funeral at a time as old thinking lies in coffins along side the venerated scientist who has published his or her last peer-reviewed article. But even then, citations continue for a period of time. Fortunately, citing a memory is less solid than citing a living, publishing person.

      • True enough, but if big money flowing from a given industry or a government agency goes to a journal, it is very tempting for the editor to censor some things and to pick hostile reviewers. Why would anyone support keeping the reviewers unknown? Why would we suppress leaders in the field from commenting on a given article and the reviews?

        Open the rotted system up to the cleansing power of transparency.

      • I don’t think peer review, in its current form, accomplishes much of anything.
        We have all read in the climategate emails and sadly, we are learning the same in other fields what gets through their peer review.
        If Exxon pays for research they own it, but…
        I’d rather that any research done on the people’s dime belong to the people.
        Everything should be put on line with free access. Let everyone read and review it.
        Include all data, code (include everything our money was spent on) and any negative findings.
        We paid for it, The data was collected on our behalf therefore, we should have it.
        The researcher should establish a web site with a blog where people could come along for the ride.
        The ship of fools’ researcher did it. He maintained an online journal.
        When you’re done everything goes to us.
        Why couldn’t Dr. Mikey Mann et al do it?
        Let the researcher and his findings stand on their merit.
        Let the scientific community study it as they believe necessary and respond as they see fit.
        The data and everything would be available for their use.
        Why not? It’s already paid for.

    • If this is what you want, it is available for the first article published regarding the increase in CO2 as a result of burning fossil fuels being responsible for a very mild increase in temperature.
      You can download the source of the article at this site and then click on the PDF file shown.

      https://scholar.google.com/scholar?oi=gsb95&q=G.S.%20Callendar%201938&lookup=0&hl=en

      You will get the name of the reviewers, their comments and the response of the author to the comments.
      Make sure you read the conclusion on page 236 and the Discussion starting on page 237.

    • its purpose is to enforce the prevailing group-think view……

      Definition of peer
      one that is of equal standing with another : equal; especially : one belonging to the same societal group especially based on age, grade, or status

      exactly…by it’s very definition

      If 10 “peer” reviewers say you are wrong, you’re wrong…
      …even though you were 100% right

      …the idea was to keep out the quacks

  34. Thank you Eric.

    I rather fancy that Mr. Trump will have already received (two weeks ago) a comprehensive list of recommendations from “Heartland” and also from one very important person here in England.

    I am confident that the new President will drain the appropriate “swamp”.

    Regards,
    WL

  35. Both NOAA and NASA are excellent scientific agencies. I strongly support the work they do. However, in the last two decades both agencies have been politicized at the top and have been assigned missions in the climate change movement. The movement has been spread as far as the leaders can drive it down through the ranks of all various departments. Extracting this politically driven distortion of the mission of each agency will greatly improve it’s focus on the important, valid, exciting scientific work they do. Weather forecasting, climate research, space exploration and research of the Universe should proceed full speed.

    • Finally, a sensible comment. I have been reading in horror as commenter after commenter wants to gut NASA like a trout and give over everything to NOAA.
      Well, I can understand the frustration with GISS, but to kill all the Earth observing programs NASA does because they touch on Climate Science seems a bit much.

      Then, to hand everything over to NOAA uncritically? Really?
      Everybody, remember NOAA gave us Tom Karl and NCDC and the Karlization of the SST. Then we have Kevin “Travesty” Trenberth over at NCAR (not part of NOAA, apparently, but they do work together). Finally, Mark Serreze at NSIDC.

      Things are just not so simple.
      John Coleman has it exactly right.

      • Still not a reason to not move NASA’s NOAA-like stuff to NOAA.

        NASA gave us Hansen, Gavin Schmidt (and others). Unaccountable political bureaucratic organizations have a bad habit of delivering junk, or, if you’re the Veterans Administration, death.

      • It’s not about whether agency A or agency B is a better-run agency or has less biased personnel. It’s just that it makes administrative sense not to have multiple agencies perform the same task, and NOAA seems the appropriate agency for climate observations and research, a natural extension of its weather-related work. If NOAA is not capable of performing the task as it needs done, the appropriate response would be to fix NOAA, not set up NASA to do much the same thing.

        Of course, it’s possible that other spending on the list isn’t actually spent on “climate”, but is a different expense with a layer of greenwash on it. In that case the appropriate response is to remove the greenwash to see what the real task is, and determine how much money it really needs, if any.

        I personally doubt President Trump will place a high priority on draining this particular patch of swamp, but I hope to be pleasantly surprised.

    • it’s focus on the important, valid, exciting scientific work they do…

      And who’s going to decide that? The same people decided that climate change wasn’t political.

  36. Add the National Science Foundation FY2017 request at $7.964 billion.

    Add the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (handling $2.8 billion for US GCRP)

    [Hard to find numbers on Holdren’s et al. salaries and perks … better to flat-line them all.]

  37. “The world is waiting to hear what President-elect Donald Trump has in mind for governing the U.S. Among the biggest questions is what will happen to the budget for climate and energy-related activities.”

    A sliver of the trillions of dollars in play due to America’s oil boom could fund environmental work that actually benefits man AND nature.
    As an example, America’s western rangelands are imperiled by a incredibly invasive non-native grass known as Cheatgrass. It outcompetes native plants and significantly increases the frequency of fires. It is also a nuisance for ranchers.
    If BP or Exxon (etc) directed a fraction of their resources (money and scientists) to finding innovative solutions for controlling this weed, they would be doing the world an enormous favor.
    AGW is the greatest fraud in human history. The result is that resources that could have been used to solve actual environmental problems were squandered.
    In addition, the economic activity that was quashed in order to “Save the Planet” could have funded efforts that actually have value.
    Lastly, the gov’t agencies that played along with the AGW fraud have discredited themselves. Restoring their reputations will be next to impossible.
    President Trump could be the best thing that ever happened for the environment – and the country. I predict that the AGW fraud will soon collapse like a house of cards. Hopefully real science will triumph we can direct our resources to serious environmental issues that are not fiction.

  38. It would be nice to see some of that money diverted to real data collection that satellites can’t do, like reinstating the arctic ice bouys. They are down to a few, so it’s impossible to see what’s really going on at sea/ice level. They have been saying it’s a funding problem, but I’m more inclined to think they just don’t like the answers. In the huge amount of budget, a few million to get actual data should be a no brainer.

  39. Give the one year notice to drop the UNFCCC funding and membership. I wonder how many billions that represents.

  40. This is only the starting point list from a low-information source. Going beyond that we have directed waste at DoD, UN re-allocation of wealth transfers, and the budget cost of the ITC. Add in the cost of climate change policy on an already stressed academic and primary education system and you have long term costs from IQ impairment measured in trillions.

    • The most significant cost going forward will be rewriting all the textbooks that present unsubstantiated claims about CO2 as fact. Some fraction of the billions saved by a rational approach to climate science should be allocated for this. Otherwise, we’ll be stuck with broken textbooks for the next couple of decades and children (including those that make it to college) will still be learning the propaganda instead of the truth.

  41. Resource guy commented: “Add in the cost of climate change policy

    on an already stressed academic and primary education system

    and you have long term costs from IQ impairment measured in trillions.”

    Well ellucidated — the astronomical social cost of the “Anthropocene Age” scientific paradigm.

  42. Chris November 24, 2016 at 4:36 am

    “From Obama down, this Administration has wasted precious resources fabricating and sustaining a crisis that only exists in their minds.”

    Um, and in the minds of corporate America, virtually 100% of which believes it is real.

    The problem with packing the boards of all our successful businesses with green NGO puppets and marketers is that it only works when you regulate competition out of existence. Put that another way: adding inefficiencies and expenses at every turn only works if everyone does it, and if you outlaw other businesses.That is the whole point of these ghastly globalist trade deals and environmental treaties.

    But where there is liberty, there are younger, smaller, funner competitors. And the best part: voluntary and happy customers with real choices.

    • That is the whole point of these ghastly globalist trade deals and environmental treaties.
      ===============
      the EU started out as a trade pact. however, by adding trade regulation on top of all facets of life, with hundreds of regulations covering even minute details of life, they slowly became the de facto government of Europe. an elected parliament without power, with an un-elected board that controls all levers of power.

  43. Folks,

    Here is my list of actions for the Trump administration to consider taking.

    1). Reverse President Obama’s signing of the UN COP-21 Climate change Treaty of 2015 (Paris Agreement).

    2). Support the efforts of an Australian initiative called CLEXIT (http://clexit.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/clexit.pdf ) to cancelling the Paris Agreement on climate change by various countries (Disclosure: I am a founding member).

    3). Cancel any US funding for the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and curtail funding of US participants in any and all UN-sponsored climate functions

    4). Cut all funding for climate research by 50% and require NSF, NOAA, DOD, EPA, and DOE to use the reduced funding ONLY for OBSERVATION-BASED and EVIDENCE-BASED climate research.

    5). Cut funding for all climate-related education programs in schools and colleges.
    6). Cut funding for expensive, unproductive alternate energy research and subsidies.

    With respect to Item #1, please be advised that the UN’s goals in climate change are to destroy the capitalistic system and national sovereignty and likely is known to you. I base this statement on two quotes from former UN officials and ‘Agenda 21’ which make this very clear:

    “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.” – Christiana Figueres, Former Executive Secretary, UNFCCC (UN Framework Convention on Climate Change), February 10, 2015 (Investors Business Daily)

    AND

    “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole. We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.” – Ottmar Edenhofer, Former UN Climate Official, 3.29.16 (Investors Business Daily)

    I rest my case.

    George Devries Klein, PhD< PG, FGSA

  44. cut the subsidies, cut the taxes, cut the regulations, remove the barriers to entry. business will boom, employment will boom, government revenues will boom.

  45. Use that money to harden our electric system against EMP! Re-up the facilities to manufacture power transformers and re-employ the skilled workers – here, in the USA. Do it now! – Before the N. Koreans and/ or the Iranians complete their ability to destroy us!

  46. “Though they’re a relatively small piece of a federal budget that is in excess of $1 trillion, how the administration deals with climate and energy will go a long ways toward determining the future of the planet.”

    They were too lazy to even Google to find out what the federal budget is…$3.95 trillion for 2016. Makes no difference if it is 1 percent, 10 percent, or .0001 percent of the budget. Wasteful spending is wasteful spending.

  47. So, the Government Steals from us for the past 20 yrs on Climate flipping Change,.. and wants US to be mad at Not LETTING THEM Anymore? Salon…. you are bonkers if you think Americans fall for your Bullchit.
    Go suck a Rock….. She how long the Climate makes it change…
    Azzhats..
    Robin Price Grace…..

  48. NOAA is the only organization whose portfolio covers weather and climate. You’ll notice that they have the smallest allocation for climate research in the whole list. I smell graft, in copious amounts.

    Slash everyone else’s climate funds, review NOAA’s.

  49. Forgot to add DoD. The DOD is under an Obama directive to obtain 20% of their energy from “Renewable sources. That includes building Wind farms, Solar Farms and extravagant wasteful “Research”

    • The DOD is under an Obama directive

      Exactly correct.
      Rescind the executive order and the problem goes away.
      DOD wants no part of the “sustainable, environmentally friendly” military. Stop making them do this stuff, and DOD will need no further encouragement to drop all this stuff.

      • HOW???? The utility I retired from has a $0.03/kwh contract for electricity with the local AFB. . Please tell me what wind/solar is cheaper than that? The contract with the Solar power contractor is over $0.25/kwh. How does that save fuel costs?

  50. I’ve read most of the comments here and I, perhaps naively, expected a higher level of conversation. I’m a climate skeptic, but I find this orgy of knee- jerk retribution against the entire climate science establishment a bit much. What needs to be done is a thorough review of all federal science policy and organizations. Then those engaged in climate advocacy, or any kind of science advocacy, needs to be defunded and the responsible individuals should be held accountable.

    We know enough about climate change to know that we have a problem with Co2 emissions, but the uncertainties overwhelm what we know. To not gather and analyze data, and not continue to advance the science, would be insane. We need one objective organization studying this issue, and the US of A should be sponsoring it. Mindlessly eliminating agencies or eliminating their budgets is not the way to do this.

    I’m hoping that a few people here agree that climate change is a subject worthy of study. We need to do it better, not eliminate it. And I hope the new President has the judgment and patience to do this properly. We don’t need an anti-science purge.

    • agree that climate change is a subject worthy of study

      Study climate, perhaps. Study the planet’s weather system and it’s long term interactions and variations from short to very long time frames. By all means.

      Climate change, as in Global Warming? Forget it. Been there, done that. The proponents of the idea have had 30+ years of lavish funding and have come up empty. Enough, already.

      We don’t need an anti-science purge

      We need a good purge of anti-science.

    • This is lately and perhaps understandably largely a reflection of current US political events…

      The majority of world skeptics are Republicans, so there’s bound to be a political bias, and much comment driven by enthusiasm for the change in regime…

      I’m disappointed that actual climate events are not being debated though – like this:

      and the arctic 36 degree F temp anomaly

      and this research
      http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/arctic-sea-ice-melting-polar-north-antarctic-global-warming-climate-change-tipping-point-a7438416.html

      and this
      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/02/nasa-reveals-shocking-rate-of-decline-in-arctic-sea-ice/

      • Griff: “I’m disappointed that actual climate events are not being debated though – like this:”

        That’s called “weather”.

        Do try to keep up.

      • The 36 degree F temperature anomaly in the Arctic is really a time anomaly. I’ve been looking for the explanations, but haven’t found any legitimate ones outside of the AOC. The gist is this — we should be in a state of rapid cooldown during this month in the Arctic. The cool-down is delayed due to ocean oscillations — but it looks more extreme when you use temperature because the Arctic normally cools down by this much or more as it heads into winter. (And, of course, you use Fahrenheit because it looks bigger.)

        There also seems to be a prompt shift in the data on both the Arctic and Antarctic sea ice extent calculation. I’ve been trying to find out what has caused that shift, but it is an abrupt shift. On this graph, you see the shift when 2016 maps the 2011 and 2013 trend line, then shifts to being the lowest ice extent since 1981. I cannot find anybody who can explain this shift.

        Neither the Independent nor the Telegraph are “research”. Republican is an American political party, so statements like “The majority of world skeptics are Republicans” are invalid.

      • The largest political bloc in the USA is neither Republican nor Democrat.
        The largest voter bloc in the US is “unaffiliated” voters.
        Independents.
        ( Not the Independent Party)

    • scraft1: “We know enough about climate change to know that we have a problem with Co2 emissions”

      No we don’t.

      Recent research indicates very much the opposite, in fact.

      Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds

      From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25.

      https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth

    • We know enough about climate change to know that we have a problem with Co2 emissions, but the uncertainties overwhelm what we know. To not gather and analyze data, and not continue to advance the science, would be insane. — Scraft

      I agree with that sentiment. We need to keep studying the climate until we have a better understanding of it. I think a kneejerk response to climate science is based on the perception of scientific bias in the research.

      For me, the question is not one of “We know enough about climate change to know that we have a problem with Co2 emissions, but the uncertainties overwhelm what we know.” — Rather, we have to determine if any solutions are worse than the actual harms related to reducing carbon dioxide emissions.

      We know that carbon dioxide levels are rising primarily due to manmade causes. Beyond this, the evidence supports a man-made link to longer and more frequent heat waves, (shorter and less frequent cold waves) and a slight increase in sea level. The linkage between any other harm is theoretical, but poorly documented. (extinction, droughts, hurricanes, coral reef damage, and so on) Most of these linkages are based on a nebulous correlation — as carbon dioxide increases then extinctions have increased. But correlation does not equal causation, and even the correlations are weak.

      But here is the problem with our scientific system. If you are a scientist trying to get funding, you gain more funding to study a possible link between your field of expertise and climate change. To get published in a prestigious journal, you need to publish more significant results than seen in the past. Few scientists will get published if they study the American Pika population with the result that there is no link to climate change. Yet, the only way to get further financing is to get published in a prestigious journal.

      This creates a system of confirmation bias in the funding methods of science. Until that is resolved, we will continue to have people believe that climate science does not deserve the funding methods they receive.

  51. “$13.5 billion is an awful lot of road resurfacing and bridge repairs”

    Actually, I think it is less than a week’s worth of current federal government over-spending. Cut it, and the US gets nothing except a little less deficit spending. :(

  52. There have been many good ideas suggested in this thread.
    The Trump administration (what fun to type that!) has a suggestion box.
    I have already used the Web version to suggest reinstating Civics in education.
    The McClatchy link below has some explanation and includes links directly to the Web and Twitter channels for you to communicate your ideas to them.
    http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article116478298.html
    Have at it!
    PA Ozzies: if you want an American citizen to front for you, please let me know.

Comments are closed.