Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Bob Walker, senior campaign adviser to President-elect Donald Trump, has re-affirmed Trump’s commitment to NASA focussing on space exploration, by stating that NASA’s Earth Science Division would be stripped of funding as part of a Trump crackdown on “Politicized Science”.
Trump to scrap Nasa climate research in crackdown on ‘politicized science’
Nasa’s Earth science division is set to be stripped of funding as the president-elect seeks to shift focus away from home in favor of deep space exploration.
…
Bob Walker, a senior Trump campaign adviser, said there was no need for Nasa to do what he has previously described as “politically correct environmental monitoring”.
“We see Nasa in an exploration role, in deep space research,” Walker told the Guardian. “Earth-centric science is better placed at other agencies where it is their prime mission.
“My guess is that it would be difficult to stop all ongoing Nasa programs but future programs should definitely be placed with other agencies. I believe that climate research is necessary but it has been heavily politicized, which has undermined a lot of the work that researchers have been doing. Mr Trump’s decisions will be based upon solid science, not politicized science.”
…
Climate scientists at other organizations expressed dismay at the potential gutting of Earth-based research.
Kevin Trenberth, senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, said as Nasa provides the scientific community with new instruments and techniques, the elimination of Earth sciences would be “a major setback if not devastating”.
“It could put us back into the ‘dark ages’ of almost the pre-satellite era,” he said. “It would be extremely short sighted.
“We live on planet Earth and there is much to discover, and it is essential to track and monitor many things from space. Information on planet Earth and its atmosphere and oceans is essential for our way of life. Space research is a luxury, Earth observations are essential.”
…
I remember growing up, reading science fiction authors like Larry Niven, Jerry Pournelle and Michael Flynn, about the great battles for funding, about how Senator William Proxmire (D-Wisconsin) did everything in his power to kill American space research.
His reason for doing so? Like Climate Scientist Kevin Trenberth, Senator Proxmire believed Space exploration was an unnecessary luxury, a waste of taxpayer’s funds. Proxmire wanted to strip the NASA budget to fund welfare programmes.
I never imagined back then that the true enemy of NASA’s original deep space mission would strike from within, slowly eating away an ever increasing share of NASA’s internal space budget like a raging parasitic infection, leaving the original shell intact, but quietly transforming NASA from a space exploration agency into a glorified weather programme.
Perhaps Trump will make NASA great again.
Correction (EW): h/t South River Independent, Jon von Briesen – Senator Proxmire was D-Wisconsin, not D-Illinois, he was born in Illinois.
Let the bells ring out, let the banners Fly!
NASA : National Aeronautical and Space Agency.
Is see no reason why they should not be used for launching satellites but where did the study of climate and climate modelling ever get in here?
GISS: NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies
where did the study of climate and climate modelling ever get in here?
Good point. They can launch satellites and let someone else study the data.
Should James Hansen be investigated for committing fraud? Oh yeah. If he did not INTEND to commit fraud I guess he can’t be held accountable.
Second-best news I’ve heard all day.
What was the best if we may ask?
Previously got his dates mixed up and his Powerball ticket still has a chance.
Engineering project took a major step forward.
Congratulations, Michael! Happy for you!
sounds like you finally got your “Engi” in place and are no longer just “neering project”
GISS should be a data delivery organization so others can analyze the RAW data. This would significantly advance Earth science by making data more accessible. NASA has been collecting tons and tons of this data and we’ve already paid for it. All we get to see for it is a bunch of speculative interpretations where a lot of the raw data the speculations are based on is hidden from view.
I see your NASA have just debunked our (OZ) Malcolm Roberts claim that it manipulated data !
According to the ABC .
“GISS should be a data delivery organization so others can analyze the RAW data. ”
NASA uses NOAA data
If you want raw data go to NOAA
and there are other sources besides NOAA
Skeptics dont even know who collects the data, who processess it and who analyzes it
@Steven Mosher
November 23, 2016 at 4:21 pm : Ah Mosh, what a delightful chap you are, ever helpful.
I think he is referring to satellite data.
Steve, that’s a pretty broad generalization. Many of us know where the data come from, and who “adjusts”, “corrects”, and “homogenizes” it. You are better than Jon Gruber – stop calling us all stupid.
Skeptics dont even know who collects the data, who processess it and who analyzes it
====================
an arts major that can’t even master a spell checker is hardly a credible authority.
co2, the “raw data” may have been corrupted to “politically correct climate data, etc.” Once the databases became a tool of politicized science, how will we ever know what they have done to the “raw data”? There may be no “raw data” in many of the NASA databases.
There could be some efficiencies in having NASA simply collect the data and leave the conversion of the data into disinformation to NOAA and EPA.
CO2Isnotevil-san:
What REALLY ticked me off was NASA sitting on their Antarctic ICESAT data for 23 years because it showed Antarctic land ice has been growing at 100+ billion tons/yr since1992, which was not conducive to the CAGW narrative of “unprecedented” land ice loss..
NASA funding is a self-licking ice cream cone. The more dire they make CAGW predictions, the more government funding they get…. Not a bad gig if you can get it..
It’s sickening.
NASA went from “one giant leap for mankind” to “one giant cheat of the funding kind” in just 25 years… Houston…. We have a problem…
Todays Daily telegraph UK,24/11/16states ‘Explorers records show Polar Ice is not retreating’ ,but is the same extent as 100 years ago ,from the records of the polar explorers Scott,Amundsen&Shackleton
Surely the raw data from GISs is already available?
Griff,
No. They have already admitted that the original, really raw, unprocessed, unadjusted, unhomoginized, data has been lost. All they have now is processed (or “value added” as they put it), and slightly less processed.
Paul Penrose commented: “…They have already admitted that the original, really raw, unprocessed, unadjusted, unhomoginized, data has been lost….”
It can be restored. Maybe not from their files but it can be restored.
Forest,
Making this even stranger is that the voltage measured by satellite sensors over a cloudless surface is proportional to the surface radiant emissions that corresponds its temperature. When the satellite is over clouds, this is measuring cloud emissions and hence the cloud temperature. All you need to do is a simple predictor to track the surface temperature when covered by clouds.
The LWIR sensors on satellites are tuned to relatively narrow bands in the transparent region of the spectrum. The photons captured by the sensors have passed directly from the surface to space. In principle, once calibrated to a specific surface temperature, the sensor voltage becomes proportional to where the peak emissions are corresponding to the color temperature of the radiation and Wein’s law can be applied to determine that temperature. The color temperature of the radiation leaving the planet corresponds to the temperature of the emissions source, which of course is either the surface or cloud tops (or some combination thereof).
These temperature are much harder to ‘adjust’ and because of full global coverage, there’s no need to homogenize, which is why GISS doesn’t use them for GISSTEMP. Not enough wiggle room to make the data show what they want it to show.
there is no reason that NASA/GISS should be creating a temperature record based on readings collected from surface based thermometers. this has nothing to do with space exploration.
yet that is precisely what GISS under Gavin is doing. building climate models using airport and ship based temperature data.
while at the same time, NASA/GISS IGNORES the satellite based temperature data. WHY? Why does an agency charged with SPACE STUDIES ignore space and study land and sea based thermometer data?
Sooner or later we have to leave earth and travel to other solar systems, I guess we won’t think that deep space exploration was a waste of money at that time.
Just colonizing and exploiting asteroids would justify the cost.
Please tell me just why we would want to do that. And, if you believe that travel to another solar system will become necessary, shouldn’t essentially all the money be placed into R&D on how to travel at speeds greater than the speed of light. I don’t see too many promising ideas on that front so why do any funding for this lunacy at all. Also please note that this note is coming from a PhD in Aerospace engineering who fully supports hear earth exploration.
I’m not a PhD in Aerospace engineering but I don’t think it sounds like a good idea to just accelerate to the speed of light (and perhaps beyond) in a random direction.
Dr. Lanier:
Your professors seem to have neglected to teach you about space-time/general relativity. Imagine a 40yr journey (according to the astronaut’s watch) almost at the speed of light (achieving it by accelerating to maintain 1g on board). They accelerate for 10yrs, then decelerate for 10yrs, turn around and come back. They then accelerate as before and decelerate the final 10yrs. When they get back, things on earth have aged about 600 centuries! How is that for a mission?!
C/g is 354 days. Maintaining 1g for a year is hardly possible.
how to travel at speeds greater than the speed of light
======================
Einstein’s relativity (time dilation and length contraction) shows that the speed of light is not a barrier to space exploration. A constant 1 G acceleration space shift can reach the other side of the observable universe within a human lifetime. The 1 G force of “artificial gravity” on the passengers will remain the same as if they were on planet earth.
To the observers on earth, the space ship will appear to take billions of years to make the journey. But to the observer on the ship, the journey will take some 70 years, while the billions of light years traveled will be length contracted to less than 70 light years, such that the ship will always appear to travel at less than the speed of light.
Thus, the speed of light is not the barrier to space travel. The problem is how to generate sufficient energy to maintain 1 G acceleration, and the fact that you can never return to your “own” time, due to time dilation. While you age some 70 years, the earth will have aged billions of years.
I hear that here the minerals needed for expansion are finite.
I hear that out there they are infinite.
I hear a cart before a horse here.
Dr. Lanier,
I have no idea where you got the idea that anybody in this conversation was talking about travel to other solar systems, so as far as I’m concerned, that is a non sequitur. As far as exploring our own solar system, that makes sense to me. We know it is only a matter of when, not if, a large object will show up on a collision course with our planet. If that happens, we need the technology to divert it. Such technology will not be developed by just puttering around in earth orbit. And, if we are unable to divert it, we need to have viable colonies off world in order for the human race to survive. For these reasons alone I support exploration of our solar system and eventual colonization of other celestial bodies.
Gavin, what did you say ?? Gav………….. ? ROFLMAO !!!
I’d call it a GIGO computer gaming scam rather than a weather program.
Gavin In, Garbage Out?
>¿<
°
I'm going to have to remember that one ^¿^
I think it is actually the other way around.
The data was “Gavin’d”
But that competes with Karlization, comes into ay before the Gavin transformation.
Just as the voters were Gruber’d in 2012. The GISTEMP record is Karlized, then Gavind. The product is thus total garbage while worth $Trillions to the Green Blob.
The only reason NASA got into weather and climate was the effect on launches and flights. They don’t need to duplicate the work of NOAA.
Exactly!
They also study the atmosphere, weather, and climate on earth to help them understand more about atmospheres, weather and climate on other planets. Just as studying geology on earth helps them to understand what they are seeing on the surface of Mars and the various moons of the gas giants. And THAT is the application where the GISS climate and weather should have stayed just as the very name Goddard Institute for Space Studies implies. But it didn’t. So the way I see it, the administrative/legal question is how does one permanently limit the NASA climate and weather studies to only those areas directly aimed at advancing space programs and planetary sciences and get them and keep them out of the earth climate scam business for good?
About darn time. NASA is not even needed to get the birds on orbit these days.
What is this space and weather stuff?….
…I thought NASA’s main objective was muslim outreach
http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2010/aug/01/michael-sullivan/michael-sullivan-says-nasa-administrator-said-main/
(hey Twinbreath….suck it up)
LOL! +100
Obama’s NASA appears to spend a bit to much time and money on the star of the “Crescent of Embrace”.
(Where were those Freedom From Religion Foundation guys when this was going down?)
Hmmm, quite so. He specifically said “Muslim” countries. I find it useful to change one word and see how it reads – “Prez Trump said NASA’s charter is to reach out to Christian nations blah blah historical contribution to maths and science, for example Newton, Galileo…”
Well you could say that the two cultures are a world apart, so it seems quite natural for NASA to take up the challenge.
There are other US government agencies that do very much the same thing as NASA, but NASA was a sily bit of politics to start with, so as to not “millitarize space”. The Defense department and the CIA/NRO also operate satellites, and overlap what NASA and NOAA also do as far as earth surveilliance and weather reporting.
It’s a travesty. NOT! Bwah, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, haaaaaaaaaaaa!
“Yaaaaaay! ……….. Hello, Bedford Falls!…….. Merry Christmas!”
Jimmy Stewart as George Bailey, “It’s a Wonderful Life”
(youtube)
But, guess who will end up in jail, Potterinton — heh.
Ms M, ever see the remake with marlo thomas and cloris leachman as the angel? (“it happened one christmas”)…
I think I saw part of it. They are good actors, but, the original movie is my favorite movie in the world and, thus, no other version stands a chance against it. I have to let a few years pass, now, between viewings, I know it so well! LOVE that movie! My brother and have fun tossing lines back and forth. “Get this! I’m handin’ out wings” “Oh, why don’t you go away and stop annoying people.” (likely imperfectly recalled, but, still fun! 🙂 )
I have the HD colorized version. That’s as far as a remake could possibly go and still be worth watching.
Well, CodeTech, that’s all well and good (lol, glad to know you like that show a lot, too 🙂 ).
But, there is something mysteriously lovely about black and white in certain movies that makes them more “magical” for me. “It’s a Wonderful Life” is one of them. Can’t put it into words. It just is.
my scant memory of it is that leachman made me laugh so hard that my face hurt… (☺)
I think NASA’s annual budget is about $19.3 bn. Assuming they launch 1 weather satellite per year costing $300 million (including launch), that should leave them with $19 bn for actual space exploration. Shouldn’t government climate scientists all be employed by National Center for Atmospheric Research, anyhow? Certainly no need for NASA to employ any climate modelers.
NCAR is just as bad with data manipulation as GISS.
Narrow it down. keep narrowing it down. At present we have adjustment upon adjustment, who knows who does what and why. So lets take as many pout of the loop as we can. For decades I have advocated a data base war. They used to fight as to which method was the best. Now they just fight to ensure they all say them same. In the real commercial world there is a word for it ‘cartel’ – needs breaking, quickly!
GISS doesnt adjust data, except for UHI which COOLS the record
GISS adjusts data. Please see the following:
(Source John Goetz, https://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/09/23/adjusting-pristine-data/ )
Sample Comment:
Mike Bryant: “Thanks John Goetz. This is just mind-boggling. Of course, I’ve read of these adjustments, but to see them laid out like this…”
(https://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/09/23/adjusting-pristine-data/#comment-42485 )
“The space agency’s budget includes more than $2 billion for its Earth Science Mission Directorate for global warming science, which is specifically allocated to improve climate modeling, weather prediction and natural hazard mitigation. In comparison, NASA’s other functions, such as astrophysics and space technology, are only getting a mere $781.5 and $826.7 million, respectively, in the budget proposal.”
https://www.cfact.org/2016/02/11/obamas-nasa-budget-is-all-about-global-warming-not-space/
“…NASA’s annual budget is about $19.3 bn.”
Interestingly, Australia’s welfare budget is about $20 B. So if we stopped paying for all the worthless mouths, we would have enough money for a space programme. I’d vote for that.
Really? You’re happy to starve a 90yo WWII veteran, or a person not working temporarily after being crashed into by a drunk driver shattering their legs?
You’re happy to deal with the level of crime that would result as unemployed youth fight to survive?
And considering NASA can’t lift a man above 36000′ in their 747, that $US15bn (I assume you won’t want the climate hoax and Muslim outreach functions) won’t buy you much. You would also find Oz a poor location given it’s too ft from the equator.
Andrew, about half of Australia is closer to the equator than Cape Canaveral. Invest in an atlas.
Worrying? http://news.sky.com/story/donald-trump-to-keep-an-open-mind-after-re-think-on-climate-change-10668667
What, Me? Worrying? Not. 🙂
An open mind about climate science will lead one to the inevitable truth that the effect CO2 emissions have on the climate, while finite, is too small to be obsessing about. When he says he will have an open mind, I suspect this is in contrast to the closed minded alarmists. This is only good news, as it’s clear he wants to rely on scientific principles to lead the way followed by a cost benefit analysis.
Agreed!
There’s more than one way to skin a cat….as my old Gran used to say!
axolotl 🙂
Potrzebie 😉 http://www.wanderingherpetologist.com/mad-axolotl-poem/
Are you MAD, Roger? lololo Delightful poem. Thanks for sharing.
And, Roger, thanks for picking up on the MAD deal. Soon after I posted above, I nearly replied to myself, “And I am not mad.” But, was hoping someone would enjoy my “set up” — you went above and beyond!
That link isn’t https so the only thing I’d worry about is clicking the link.
Why?
Me – just check for yourself – https://www.donaldjtrump.com/policies/
and appreciate that the Donald, like his son-in-law, is not giving away the game before the whistle.
Thanks hope you’re right
” Donald, like his son-in-law, is not giving away the game before the whistle. ”
Exactly. See also his remarks about a Hillary Prosecution, The Wall, O’BuggerCare, etc.
He’s clearly (and effectively) coaching his words – like any world-class negotiator – to remain non-committal until he FULLY studies the subject and listens to his team of advisors. I am liking what I see, so far.
Media falsely spins Trump’s NYT climate comments – Trump cited Climategate, restated skepticism of ‘global warming’ – Read full transcript
http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/11/23/fake-news-update-media-falsely-spins-trumps-climate-comments-read-full-nyt-transcript/
First I knew Don Trump’s uncle was a MIT engineering professor involved in X Ray and Nuclear research. No wonder he has respect for real science and scepticism.
That’s a scare story, put out after Trump’s interview with the New York Times. The interviewers tried several times to get Trump to change his mind and support the Paris agreement, but he would merely say, “I’ll be thinking about it” and go on to topics of higher concern, such as golf courses. He was dangling the NYT reporters in mid-air, making them wait for what turned out to be nothing; he never changed his stance, just said he’d think about it, which gained him time to get on to important things like appointing more people to more positions. I don’t expect DT to abandon his stated objectives.
The fact that during it’s limited time with the president elect that the NYT spent so much time and energy on the subject when there are so many other issues to talk about is a very indicative of just how central the climate change scam is in the scheme of the one world government types
Up next: the climate division of NOAA! lolololol Oh, BOY. Christmas — every — day!
Just read below — Correction: “… climate division except for UAH satellite temp. program …” !
It is an embarrassment that the nation that landed man on the moon in the orbit 240.000 miles away, has to depend on Russia to get their scientist to the ISS orbit at just over 220 miles.
So the Earth and Solar sensing activities will be shifted to NOAA . Who else ?
Still highly politicized , but nothing could be as anti-science as GISS .
How much money have we spent in space? ZERO!!! All the money was spent on Earth to send men and machines into space. It went to individuals and companies that had creative genius and technical know-how. It promoted innovation, intelligence, exceptional ability and imagination. It created a vision of America that was positive and forward thinking. It encouraged young children to dream and study, in the hopes that one day they might walk on the moon or Mars, or maybe even travel to the stars. It has always been money well spent. The benefits to the rest of us, just in technical advances alone, are incalculable.
On the other hand, the welfare state and man-made climate change are all about politicians garnering more power. The welfare state creates a dysfunctional co-dependent relationship between whole segments of society, and is destined to cause the same kind of strife as co-dependency does in individual relationships – only on a massive, national scale. Man-made climate change is not a threat to people who can put men on the moon and bring them back again. Such people can easily find solutions to problems and even advantages to a few degrees warming over a hundred years. Too bad the warming isn’t going to happen.
+100. the surest way to destroy people is to give them money for not working.
Good news at last. Give the boot to that arrogant manipulative barsteward whose name must not be mentioned.
The science is settled so there is no need to spend money researching it any longer. In their first report the IPCC published a wide range of possible values for the climate sensivity of CO2. In their last report the IPCC published the exact same values. So after more than two decades of effort the IPCC has learned nothing new that would allow them to narrow or change the range of their guesses one iota. Because the IPCC has been totally ineffective, funding for them needs to stop and the organization needs to be desolved.
Gavin will have to sit around and play with his abacus.
Hey Gavin, about that resignation? Do us all a favor and give us a nice Christmas present….
Lump of Hansen coal….
You’ll be amazed at how he suddenly becomes indispensable. He’d love to resign in protest but the world needs him to go on suffering.
He may soon be in charge of investigating sea level rise in Wyoming :):)
I’m triggered.
I see no harm in NASA launching Earth observation satellites and delivering data, but the interpretation of that data should not be in the hands of directly state / federal run institutions (indirect funding of Universities obviously necessary).
I agree that climate science has become far too politicised, as have reports on the subject in the media. Listening to climate related stories on the BBC just makes me cringe. People commenting on the Trump election are described either as “climate deniers” (what is that??) or “pro-science”. The implication being that anybody who has any doubts about the inevitable and imminent immolation of the Earth in a global warming catastrophe is somehow “anti-science” (again – what does that mean?).
I could not be more “pro-science” if I tried. I am not a scientist myself but am an avid reader of the New Scientist and other popular science websites. I would also consider myself to be in most respects an environmentalist as, like most, I am against the destruction of forests, pollution of rivers and sea, despoilation of wild habitats, hunting species to extinction etc etc.
My politics is centrist / libertarian (hence way left of most here!) so am continually frustrated at having to agree with populist right-wing nutjobs like Trump, Farage and co (ducks to avoid major flames) rather than those whose opinions I would otherwise generally agree with.
Anybody else like me out there?
Well these people analysed the surface temp data, paid for by skeptic money and found it stood up, there was no UHI bias and that humans were warming the planet.
How many more independent investigations finding the data valid do we need?
http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings/
Yep, they found that the atmosphere has got warmer. So what? The globe has been warming gradually since the end of the little ice age. Anyway, the magnitude of the warming is not really the big issue. The real bones of contention are:
What is causing the warming (how much of it is due to CO2 emmissions and how much is natural variation / cycles)?
What is the sensitivity of the global average air temperature to rising CO2?
What is the sign and extent of cloud feedbacks?
Why is there no tropical tropospheric hot spot?
Why is there no increase in catastrophic weather events like we were promised? And, biggest of all
Is ploughing gazillions of dollars into windmills and solar panels going to make any difference?
My reading of all this is that most of the warming is natural variation, sensitivity on latest research seems to be more in the order of 1-2c per doubling – well short of catastrophic, cloud feedbacks are probably neutral or maybe even negative, the hot spot does not exist because the models that predicted it are flawed, the weather will carry on much as it always has and windmills and solar panels probably make no difference and may even make the problem worse as we need more gas fired power plants to fill in the gaps in supply.
If we need to do anything it is to improve energy efficiency – which is usually self-funding as it saves lots of cash rather than costing it. My house has all LED bulbs and lots of insulation, all paid back within two years.
We need more empirical research and less computer model projections. We certainly do not need to be making massive budget policy decisions based on seriously flawed model based climate projections.
Griff, you may have believed Mueller was a skeptic.
However his track record in science (with the exception of the lecture lambasting Mann and Jones which in hindsight was an obvious “setup” for things to come) and more importantly his commercial interests with his daughter showed he was a true and invested alarmist.
Me. I don’t believe in polluting our own backyard, but I don’t buy into the Chicken Little crap. I’ve seen too much of it in my short lifetime to even bother.
NASA should never have gotten into climate science beyond studying the Earth to apply it to other planets. Weather, climate…etc. all of that HAS an agency–NOAA. Not saying the two couldn’t work together or collaborate–i.e. NASA builds the satellites and launches them for NOAA..but NASA shouldn’t be interpreting those results. That is NOAA’s job.
Why do I feel as if NOAA collectively let out a sigh of relief at Trump’s announcement? Yea! We get to do OUR jobs! kind of thing.
As for Trump, I do agree with him on the politicized science of climate change. I am also finding I partially agree with him on a lot of his other less “key” issues that were obscured during the hate race to the POTUS seat. I am cautiously optimistic about the man. But I do agree with him completely on this issue.
I assume this will eventually apply to ecological research by the USGS as well. I’m sure there are other examples of politicized science that could save a lot of money if scrapped.
Fixing NASA is one thing, but this whole mess is one big mess.
$10.0 billion right there. Everybody’s in on it.
http://www.gao.gov/assets/680/671057.jpg
Note there was an earlier version of this arrangement that made even less sense.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/usgao/19149829681/
Bill, so there is your answer.
To President Elect Trump:
Take this mess, in the name of efficiency take all the climate activities and house it in it’s own agency or maybe roll it into the DOE – take all the members out of their departments and rehome them there. At that point you have a single budget line item to manage. Rebuild the climate division with real (sceptical) scientists and engineers with a no disadvantage mandate. Sack anyone who refuses to debate science.
Extract the USA from and defund the UNFCCC and the UNHRC shifting that UNHRC funding to a revitalised red cross. Defund any city that donates to ICLEI or tries to skirt the withdrawal from Paris by independently joining the Paris Accord by the projected amount the accord will damage the economy. Cite the afore created climate department as consolidating US effort on climate.
Split out climate science grants from the NSF and establish a subcommittee within the NSF to handle funding requests mentioning climate change – ensure there is an appropriate separate budget line item for these projects. Establish strings attachments that climate NSF grants only go to projects that have at least 50% industry funding to make sure the research is economically sensible. Reserve a small amount maybe only 5% for pure research – after all the science is settled and incontrovertible didn’t you know.
Repeal subsidies for noncompetitive energy technologies, defund any states by the amount they spend on any new subsidies taking care not to break the contracts they already have with consumers – after all the people of the nation entered into these subsidised agreements in good faith, You don’t want to hurt the citizenry.
Discontinue aid to any countries that spend US dollars on climate change mitigation. Real adaptation (eg Cyclone shelters are OK though).
Reverse Obama’s ban on building Coal Power stations in third world nations
Redirect the USA foreign aid program. Start a massive building program of coal mining and associated electricity networks in Africa on a build/operate basis. Alleviating poverty is one of the USAs best ways stopping terrorism in the process you will build weath and customers for American products.
Take the 100 Billion you just saved with all this and make America great again – make sure you send me a proportion equal to CO2 in the atmosphere just 400ppm or 0.04% as royalty for the ideas.
Regards
Bob
Bob, those are some very sensible suggestions. Mr. Trump has a website where citizens are encouraged to present ideas – have you passed your ideas on because they should be considered by the Trump team.
the red cross is one of the most corrupt NGOs on the planet. an apparat worthy of the old soviet.
What Rhoda said! +100
A great move by President Trump would be to tell the UN to get out and go somewhere like Paris or Harare!
bobl November 23, 2016 at 3:33 pm
Defund any city that donates to ICLEI or tries to skirt the withdrawal from Paris by independently joining the Paris Accord by the projected amount the accord will damage the economy.”
O’l number three is the deal breaker, the “No State Shall” right in the beginning of the paragraph kind of makes it clear.
Section 10
1: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
2: No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it’s inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
3: No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
So no bobl, you don’t mess with any defunding, you send a nice note telling the city fathers to stop or the next communication will be from United States Marshals. And don’t forget to add the customary “Thank you for your co-operation” in closing.
Oh and another treaty we never signed, US Gov can still issue “Letters of Marque and Reprisal”
Now wouldn’t that be fun, getting some congressman to slip it in on a “ear mark” to a bill.
Anyway, too many of the self righteous do not realize that the founding fathers foresaw what types of shenanigans some scoundrels might try to impose on the Republic.
michael
Rhoda, I’m not a citizen of the USA, I’m a legal non-citizen IE: I live in my own country but you are welcome to submit this in my stead -In return when you get the head swamp drainer job in the Trump Admin don’t forget us little guys…
One more piece of advice to President Elect Trump – Anthony would be nice slipped in as Gavin’s Boss in NASA – would help with your diversity numbers too!
Live long and prosper Rhoda… Corny but what a sentiment!
To Mike the Morelock.
Despite the US constitution individuals do make agreements with organisations like ICLEI and generally you can’t do anything except tighten the money strings. If the admin sees this then they should remove the funding being wasted on the green boondoggles and let the city find their own money to waste. The Trump admin should do both things, enforce the constitution and defund waste.
Here in Oz for example you have always had a right to groundwater, recently my state started to meter and charge for groundwater which is a theft of a traditional right, it should have been compensated but wasn’t and they will get away with it until someone with the cash takes it to the supreme court. Likewise a lot of what your elected officials do is bluff – look at the Paris Agreement executive ratification completely illegal by my reading – it’s all bluff.
Thank you. He must cut the funding because we need fk stared over.
@barnyard boss, I did say revitalised, but it doesn’t matter use any transparent NGO you like. No the Clinton Foundation doesn’t count as a transparent organisation. I don’t really care provided they are accountable to someone and have to justify where the money goes – as the UNHRC is particularly NOT!
There is some value in climate science but unfortunately we have to start over. The existing “science” has a completely wrong idea of how to do science and is off in the completely wrong direction.
We don’t need to study computer models of climate. This is a completely impossible path. Everybody spent studying that must be fired. We need to focus on basic science. We need to think about how to prove assumptions they take for granted.
The first step will be to fire everyone involved in the current study and hire from scratch wgain based on real scientific people who don’t Have any political bias and aren’t trying to save the earth but trying to actually figure out how nature works.
Here’s the link to Trump’s suggestion box, mentioned by Rhoda (click “Share your ideas”):
https://www.greatagain.gov
And hundreds of $millions at least is spent on travel. NASA and NOAA scientists are among the top 1% emitters of CO2 in that regard.
OMG Bill! An org chart of a swamp.
Right you are!
Need to drain the whole swamp and turn the alligators into shoes, belts and handbags.