Guest post by David Middleton
The Promise Keeper keeps delivering…
President Donald Trump’s budget proposal for fiscal year 2018 can be read as a political document, a statement of his administration’s policy priorities. Many of these proposed cuts won’t get passed by Congress, but it’s a look at what Trump values.
And what’s clear is that Trump wants the US government to pull back sharply from any effort to stop global warming, adapt to its impacts — or even study it further. Under the proposal, a wide variety of Obama-era climate programs across multiple agencies would be scaled back or slashed entirely.
[…]
1) Many of the EPA’s climate programs would be terminated. Trump is proposing a sweeping 31 percent cut to the EPA’s budget — from $8.2 billion down to $5.7 billion — shrinking funding to the lowest levels in 40 years. That includes zeroing out funding for many of the agency’s climate programs. Currently, the EPA is the main US entity working to monitor and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
[…]
2) The Department of Energy’s R&D programs would be reoriented and scaled back.Trump is proposing a 5.6 percent cut to the Department of Energy. And, to do that, he would impose a steep 17.9 percent cut — roughly $2 billion — from core energy/science programs intended to accelerate the transition to new (and cleaner) energy technologies.
[…]
3) State Department funding for climate change is axed. As part of the Paris climate deal in 2015, the United States pledged not just to cut emissions, but also to offer $3 billion in aid to poorer countries to help them adapt to climate change and build clean energy. So far, the Obama administration has chipped in $1 billion. This was seen as crucial for bringing these countries into the deal.
[…]
4) NASA’s Earth-monitoring programs are cut. One reason we know so much about climate change is that NASA has deployed a fleet of Earth-observing satellites since 1999. They collect data on everything from temperature and precipitation to underground aquifers and ocean currents to wildfires, soil moisture, and storms.
But NASA’s Earth Science Division has come under attack from conservatives who don’t appreciate the agency’s forays into climate science and think NASA should focus on space exploration instead.
[…]
5) A key NOAA program to help coastal communities adapt to climate change would be gone. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Sea Grant program provides grants for research efforts intended to help coastal communities deal with a wide variety of challenges. Lately, that has included climate change.
[…]
Including Sea Grant, Trump’s budget would eliminate $250 million in NOAA programs for coastal management, calling it “a lower priority than core functions maintained in the Budget such as surveys, charting, and fisheries management.” It’s unclear if Congress would agree to this: The Sea Grant program was established back in 1966 “to foster economic competitiveness” and has rarely been controversial in the past.
If that’s not good enough…
Pruitt, Chao reverse ‘costly’ auto rules
By JOHN SICILIANO • 3/15/17
The Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Transportation took formal action Wednesday to reverse an Obama-era decision to move forward with some of the strictest regulations for cutting emissions and improving fuel efficiency in cars and light trucks.
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt and Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao made the decision in a joint declaration just moments before President Trump was supposed to discuss the rollback at an event in Michigan.
“These standards are costly for automakers and the American people,” Pruitt said in a statement. “We will work with our partners at [the Department of Transportation] to take a fresh look to determine if this approach is realistic. This thorough review will help ensure that this national program is good for consumers and good for the environment.”
[…]
On a side note, did anyone else notice the Alfa Romeo Giulia advertisement on the Vox page? I just love irony. An article whining about Trump’s desire to zero-out climate change spending is accompanied by ad ad for a 280 hp, 149 mph car. The turbocharged 16-valve inline-4 cylinder engine can do 0-60 in 5 seconds. Not bad for a 4 cylinder engine. the Giula gets 22/32 mpg (city/highway)… A bit less than the more than 50 mpg standard that was just erased.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I think it is very important to pursue legally, the fraud which climate scientists carried out at NOAA and NASA and elsewhere ect, to adjust surface worlwide thermometer temperatures to show warming, Only this would actually convince vast numbers of AGW believers worlwide, how they were had for years.
Eliza, right on! I’m concerned that relief over the rebuilding of the economy, slashing of regulations, stripping off waste, defunding scams…. we will be too magnanimous with the ugly characters that have cost the whole world so much and taken us to the brink of dark ages. A reckoning for this monstrous malfeasance is necessary to make would be future scoundrels think twice.
Does this mean no more climate change plays and poetry?
You should be able to pick up polar bear costumes for a song.
So
The True History
Long sitting on a huge black horse
In the tree line just there in the dark
Watching the liars of his true history
Anger growing
Red hot anger in his eyes
Now he comes with the sword of truth
The huge black horse with hooves striking fire from the stone path hooves of steel
Now comes the judgement long delayed by the greedy enablers of corruption!
Clop Clop Clop CLOP CLOP CLOP
A good start; 7-others (7-years) needed.
And there is Congress; 2-vote majority is not a winner. By October 1 we may have government again by Continuing Resolution.
On a very bright note I check a few Fed web sites. Yep! John Holdren vacated his seat at NSF a few days before 20 January. Now he is free to join the 22 April protests and show his butt for the March for Aryan Science and the Homocentric Universe Dogma (i.e. Anthropogenic Global Warming [“Climate Change”]).
Some questions about where are the NSF cuts. Maybe Trump will not appoint a NSF Director, allow the staff to wriggle and resign (also without replacement) along with those of the National Science Board, and just no money from OMB.
A slow process of marginalization and down-sizing without drawing attention from Communists (er Democrats) in Congress.
Ha ha
It will be interesting to see how many real conviction alarmists there are who when the money dries up will devote their own time and money for the cause. This is what skeptics have done for years. In Australia the Climate Authority showed minimal conviction when donations dried up. Let’s close. What’s the next scare we can invent to fleece the gullible. Without the money things may implode quicker than one thinks, especially with the South Australian canary in the coal mine showing the rest of the world how a renewable energy economy really looks.
Great news! The EPA & the rest of the “climate” programs have gotten out of hand and needed to be reined in. Thank you President Trump!
‘Trump’s budget to “hammer climate programs” across the Federal government!!!’
Lets hope that this is true. Let’s make it true…WUWT.
“The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Sea Grant program provides grants for research efforts intended to help coastal communities deal with a wide variety of challenges. Lately, that has included climate change.”
I am interested how you view the fact that Trump company cited rising sea levels cause by AGW as a reason to install coastal defenses for his golf course in Ireland.
Is this simply standard business practice? You say whatever you need to to get what you want? if that is the case, why does he want sea defenses anyway? Or is it secret acknowledgement that he believes in AGW and sea level rise?
Is there any good way to spin this?
Sounds a lot like Fake News.
JPeden. I assure you this is not fake news. It is not sensible to dismiss everything you don’t like as fake. Trump was denied permission to build a sea wall to protect his golf course. He appealed, and that submission contained the following:
““If the predictions of an increase in sea level rise as a result of global warming prove correct, however, it is likely that there will be a corresponding increase in coastal erosion rates not just in Doughmore Bay but around much of the coastline of Ireland. In our view, it could reasonably be expected that the rate of sea level rise might become twice of that presently occurring. … As a result, we would expect the rate of dune recession to increase.”
What does everyone think? Just smart business?
It was one of many reasons, not the only reason.
Even when telling the truth you lie.
MarkW. I said a reason, not the reason. I take care with my writing, please try to take care with your reading.
seaice1 March 17, 2017 at 1:46 am
JPeden. I assure you this is not fake news. It is not sensible to dismiss everything you don’t like as fake.
You still haven’t sourced your claim.
seaice1 March 16, 2017 at 5:06 pm
Is this simply standard business practice?
You still haven’t sourced your claim. But let’s say it’s true. The question then becomes not “Why did Trump’s Lawyers, or Trump appear to believe in CO2-Climate Change at that time” but “Why do you still Believe In CO2-Climate Change?”
Disingenuous – mendacious even, even by your standards.
Much of the East Coast of Great Britain – including Scotland – is subject to severe erosion entirely unconnected with sea level rise.
From the Trump Golf Course information site:
Moreover, sea level around Scotland is currently becoming lower due to isostatic readjustment and has been doing so since the retreat of the glaciers.
https://www.dur.ac.uk/news/newsitem/?itemno=8805
The reason for the installation and maintenance of coastal defences in Scotland has nothing to do with fear of imaginary sea level rise.
You really don’t know what you’re wittering about, do you?
Let’s remember changes need to be made in the grant funding decision making bodies as well. All of these are captured by climate alarmists now, so almost everyone one of them that doles out money related to any research field at all, needs a wholesale change of all members.
Most of these are specifically allocated to various scientific organizations so these changes will be difficult to roll out.
As part of the Paris climate deal in 2015, the United States pledged not just to cut emissions, but also to offer $3 billion in aid to poorer countries to help them adapt to climate change and build clean energy. So far, the Obama administration has chipped in $1 billion. This was seen as crucial for bringing these countries into the deal.
The best way for those nations to show their displeasure and solidarity is for them to throw that first billion dollars back in our face saying “No thanks!”
Should I hold my breath?
How many signatories to the letter from Climate Scientists promising not to accept one thin dime from the Trump administration? Is there a running total someplace? Asking for a friend.
Okay. Maybe i spoke too soon. Since the Obama administration shuffled a half billion USD to the UN good works the global temperature has indeed come down. I proposed that based upon this amazing result that the US contribute an equal amount for equal reductions and since funding = temperature that the US be paid in kind for any failure to control global temps.
Should I hold my breath?
While not necessary it is not recommended. There is a vast chasm twixt environmental law and science. Golf courses are subject to law. There is nothing in law that demands science. Scopes lost. People forget that.
Subsequent federal court cases have however supported science. It’s unconstitutional, ie illegal, now to teach creationism as science, as it should be. Ditto so-called “intelligent design”, which was shown in court to be old creationist vinegar in a new bottle. Hilariously so, since the ID garbage was easily shown to be copied from creationist claptrap. The latter 2005 proceeding, Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al., has been called the Dover Panda Trial, in honor of the Scopes Monkey Trial.
The only ‘greenhouse gas’ that has any significant effect on climate is water vapor. Water vapor has been and still is increasing, which is countering the downtrend in average global temperature that would otherwise be occurring, The cause of the water vapor increase, which is greater than expected for the temperature increase, is being essentially ignored.
Total water vapor column, not increasing…
http://www.climate4you.com/images/TotalColumnWaterVapourDifferentAltitudesObservationsSince1983.gif
Specific humidity, no trends, possible slight increase near surface…
http://www.climate4you.com/images/NOAA%20ESRL%20AtmospericSpecificHumidity%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1948%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif
Dav – NASA/RSS have been measuring total precipitable water (TPW) using satellite instrumentation since about 1987. Reported TPW is the total from surface to TOA. Their results are graphed in Fig 3 at http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com and the links to the data are provided. I update the data monthly and the uptrend is continuing. The trend is obviously up.
Willis did an article on this issue at https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/07/25/precipitable-water/comment-page-1/
Look more closely at the bottom trace (low altitude) in your bottom graph. The specific humidity trend at low altitude since about 1975 is definitely up.
Re the graphic, it’s a lot more fun to shoot watermelons with belt-fed machine guns. The gourd variety, that is, not the human.
You had me worried for a second.
The most important cut is the one sending money to the developing world which is supposedly to use it to help mitigate climate change. The problem is that we never seem to know whether it’s actually being used for that purpose or simply winding up in state coffers for other projects or the personal bank accounts of government officials. The fact that this money is being cut suggests that it’s not going to where it was intended; in fact, wasn’t there a report that one of the recipient nations was using it to build a coal-fired plant for electrical generation?
Love the graphic of the ‘watermelon’ getting smashed! It’s perfect!
Trump’s budget director at OMB, Mick Mulvaney on climate change funding at the news conference today about the budget.
Haven’t tried linking to this website before so I’m not sure what will happen and it does not appear to be linked anywhere else.
(BUT this is the words we have all been waiting to hear for more than a decade).
http://www.snappytv.com/tc/4210397
Awesome! Thanks.
So much for the making nice jabber about Ivanka and her urban liberal friends changing The Donald’s mind during the transition.
DJT is sticking with the people who elected him, not the bubble-dwelling coastal elites.
For consideration
Proposing a budget like this is a dandy start but please realize that the money that floats around concerning CAGW is a highly sophisticated financial scam. Many NGOs and favored operatives have figured out how to commit the USG to forward funding schemes that would curdle your milk. For instance, big money is actually embedded in various DOD contracts and contributes to its wastefulness. The budget money being talked about is tip of the iceberg stuff concerning agencies like EPA.
What DJT really needs is a TASK FORCE of forensic accountants to unravel USG commitments concerning CAGW. The Senate Minority Report of 2014 is an excellent point of departure document. Here’s a link to JoNovas exec summary. http://joannenova.com.au/2014/08/senate-report-billionaires-covertly-funding-far-left-environmental-machine/
Every $1 cut for C.C. projects generates $Many in real economic returns.
And lets be fair, Trump is not just hammering environmental issues, he is also hitting education, healthcare , NASA, housing and development and a host of other departments. However the Military, Veterans and homeland security will do well out of the budget. Do such budgets give any indication of how Trump sees the major issues addressing the US, and how he sees the future?
https://twitter.com/business/status/842333969664356352/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
Trump is cutting back on departments that don’t work, and aren’t federal responsibilities in the first place.
Good for him.
That is maybe his rationale Mark. Looking at the data published by Bloomberg it seems that substantially more departments will have funding cut than those who have increased funding. It’s possible that a lot more people will be upset at these cuts than are pleased. That could translate into voting intentions.
Many people voted for Trump as he stated he would ditch the Affordable Care Act. Now that many of them realise they may be the very people affected, how will they react? I believe many Trump voters were those without hope, the poor and disposed as it were who had lost all faith in the US political system. The coal miners in Kentucky, steel workers in the rust belts, poor farmers. Once they understand that it is they who are paying for these cuts, they may be very unhappy.
Tory party chancellors have learned this lesson the hard way in the UK. They phase in cuts and austerity so that is no sudden shock to the population. I suppose at least he has carried out the unpopular actions early in his Presidency so that in four years people may have forgotten the pain.
“Many people voted for Trump as he stated he would ditch the Affordable Care Act. Now that many of them realise they may be the very people affected, how will they react?”
Nobody knows what exactly is in the health care bill now, or what it will look like when it is finished, other than Trump administrtion people saying Americans will not be worse off after Obamacare is abolished.
Noone supposedly will be left out in the cold, according to the Trump administration. But one wouldn’t know that by listening to the MSM, who are claiming all sorts of people are going to be losers in this bill.
I have to laugh when I see polls that claim 50 percent of respondents don’t like the new health care law. As if any of them even know what is in it. How can they judge? How can the MSM judge? The answer is they cannot because noone has presented a coherent picture of the program (it has to be passed in three phases as of now) other than saying people will not be worse off after Obamacare is abolished.
Trump had a meeting today with a bunch of undecided Republicans and some who were against the current bill structure, and at the end of the meeting today, Trump said eveyone in the room got on board and supported the bill. So things may not be as chaotic as the MSM and others make things out to be.
You cannot depend on getting the real picture of things from the MSM. They are nearly all looking to fault Trump, and that’s all they are looking to do. Accurate reporting is out the window.
Yes Dean, that was foolish of them to do themselves out of a job by declaring the field of climate science solved.
Trump also has to put pressure on other Nations about their budget. Germany can help pay for the wall by fully funding their NATO obligations. The less we give NATO, the more we can spend at home.
Climate “Science” on Trial; Germany Builds Wind Farms While NATO Burns
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/03/17/climate-science-on-trial-germany-builds-wind-farms-while-nato-burns/
John Leggett:
To place “science” in quotation marks is entirely appropriate. Thank you for doing so!
LOL, thanks.
1) Many of the EPA’s climate programs would be terminated. Trump is proposing a sweeping 31 percent cut to the EPA’s budget — from $8.2 billion down to $5.7 billion. it should be aA sweeping cut 87.8 percent from billion 8.2 down to to 1.0004 billion.
2) The Department of Energy’s R&D programs would be reoriented and scaled back.
Zero out Department of Energy. It was created to help us get to energy independence. We have reached that goal.
3) State Department funding for climate change is axed. Good is there any way to get the 1 billion back that the Obama administration through away.
4) NASA’s Earth-monitoring programs are cut. They are paying for cooking the books.
5) A key NOAA program to help coastal communities adapt to climate change would be gone. A better program do away with taxpayer supported flood insurance. They will quickly adapt.
Could someone explain to me what Sea Grant, NOAA programs for coastal management has to do with NOAA.
“One reason we know so much about climate change…” Wrong!
In information theoretical terms the “knowledge” is the mutual information of a specific climate model. It is the information that is available for the purpose of regulating the climate. To create a model for which the mutual information is non-nil takes a statistical population but climatologists have yet to identify one. Thus, though we have spent lots of money on the research we have gained nothing of any value in regulating the climate from this expenditure.