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
…
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.
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
https://youtu.be/vRe9z32NZHY?t=1570 From minute 26 to 28 of video says it all.
Thank you for that. It is a useful learning tool as to how governments make decisions and implement daft policies.
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 @ur momisugly wholesale 3 cents per kwh produces $8.8E6.
Installed cost @ur momisugly $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.
“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.
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.
Presiden Eisenhower beat you to it…
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”.
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.
I think we will find the real number is closer to $100 billion.
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?
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.
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.
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.
No Griff science needs repeatably not peer review.
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.
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?
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 .
Does this include funds from the Paris Acccord to help third world dictators? How much was pledged for that?
‘Donald Trump, in an effort to cut spending’
False characterization. It isn’t about saving the money; it’s about stopping the activity.
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
Salon’s (and all other Greentards) lips – God’s ears.
I certainly hope the various AGW propaganda arms in the education and university systems are justly targeted for both defunding and ostrization as well.
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
“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
I hope that Trump will get educated and help rid this nation of UN Agenda 21 & ICLEI (International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives) which is being put into action locally in most of our cities.
Look up Rosa Koire:
http://www.democratsagainstunagenda21.com/
Policy making via the sub-national level.
See Agenda 30.
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
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.
Don’t forget that the Defense department is heavily into subsidizing alternate fuels and renewable energy.
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.]
“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.
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.
Let’s stop pardoning turkeys.
OK, my work is done here.
Thanks, I needed the smile.
When they get out, I’m waiting ’round the corner with a big knife!
Give the one year notice to drop the UNFCCC funding and membership. I wonder how many billions that represents.