Guest essay by Eric Worrall
White House Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney answering questions at a press conference, explained that the reason the President wants to slash climate funding is he considers such funding to be a waste of money.
White House: Climate funding is ‘a waste of your money’
BY DEVIN HENRY – 03/16/17 03:58 PM EDT
The White House on Thursday defended a proposal to slash federal funding for climate change programs, calling it “a waste of your money.”
“I think the president was fairly straightforward on that: We’re not spending money on that anymore,” Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney said at a White House briefing on Thursday.
“We consider that to be a waste of your money to go out and do that. We consider that a basic tie to his campaign.” …
Read More (+ video): http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/324358-white-house-says-climate-funding-is-a-waste-of-your-money
I like straightforward answers to questions.
Should there be specific funding to dedicated bodies? or just allow physics students etc to do their research and projects during their education. A bit like all other areas of research: undergrad, grad school then post doc.
Along the way, the best of the students develop really good science, using the normal funding model for universities….
I was just reading: ‘Surely You’re Joking Mr Feynman’ about the life and times of Feynman where he describes his route through higher education and research. How he and others developed the science we now understand and accept. – A good read.
Yeah, I took the door.
It is.
Well… the climate is always changing, right?
you keep telling me that.
so its changing now (even if it isn’t from human CO2 according to posters here)
but the US won’t know how its changing, because it just canned all the money spent observing that.
so if there is an ice age coming or a freeze or a return to more ice in the arctic, the US won’t have anyone studying or spotting that.
And so far there is no proof whaever of manipulation of climate data or that it isn’t warming or of any fraudulent activity. Because if there was, people should be in court to answer for it.
This gets shut down without proven cause.
(And do think how the US looks to the world in all this…)
[never mind the US, how do YOU look to the rest of us? -mod]
1. We can never know how the climate is changing, only how it has changed in the past.
2. The changes are never uniform everywhere.
3. The changes can have various drivers, some short-term and others long, the most significant of which are the oceans and the sun.
4. Paleoclimatology is likely the most useful work that can be done with regard to attempting to understand climate.
5. The decision to view changes in climate, both now and in the past as being driven by CO2 has been an error of tragically and epically idiotic proportion.
Oh, for Pete’s sake. I know when the climate is changing when I step out my front door and notice it has changed. When Puget Sound stops being cold and wet in the winter and warm and less-wet in the summer, then the climate will have changed. Until then, it just doesn’t make a bloody difference.
What the US looks like to the rest of the world is only asked by people as insecure as teenager who has no self-esteem and needs to develop a sense of self and a backbone. Sadly, bullying and intimidation are encourage and weakness and submission are the recommended responses. A nation of non-thinkers subject to group-think and shaming.
(Last half of comment was apparently deemed unacceptable and the whole comment blows away.)
Possibly one of your worst hypocritical posts I’ve bothered to read Griff , you won’t apologise to Susan even though you were wrong , 30 years of studying climate , untold billions spent and what do we have – theories , models , consensus ?
If they put the same resources into a cure for cancer , we would have probably cured it by now .
You ignore climategate files , you obviously have trouble with small numbers as in ph 8.1 is acidic to the likes of you , or have you homogenised the ph scale as well to fit your ideology .
We are not ideologically driven , we just call bullshit where we it and you are covered in it .
As a Canadian I would say the U.S. is starting to look rational, Griff! Not something I’m used to but you should embrace it. It looks good on you!
Griff, baby, we still have weather satellites and TV weather forecasters (many of them outrageously attractive).
We save up all the weather data and then, after a number years, we call it climate.
Robert from oz, I would argue that it is more like untold TRILLIONS.
Skankhunt42, you are 100% correct, the climate has ALWAYS been changing, analysis of the geological record of the planet tells us that. And what we are experiencing in present day falls well within the range of normal climate patters of the past 600 million years. I am very glad that we saw a warming pattern from the late 1970’s to the late 1990’s, because cold kills way more people than heat does (17:1 ratio). And the (give or take) 20 year warming trend had more impact towards the polar areas than the equatorial area – remember a warmer planet is a more benign planet.
However I know, I know, I shouldn’t confuse you with facts ……
Griff’s feeling his oats again. I’m convinced he’s some part of a horse.
Tell you what, Griff. Channel 10’s weatherman out of Albany has a lot of “weather watchers” who call in their local temps every day from numerous towns in the viewing area. We’ll rely on them to collect data, if everything gets shut down, OK? It’s heavily Republican outside Albany, so not much worry about warmist bias. Other areas can do the same. What a network!
[never mind the US, how do YOU look to the rest of us? -mod]
Bullied frankly, something to be real proud of. Well done us.
I want to see the seminal paper in which it is demonstrated that accurate long range predictions in the phase space of deeply non-linear dynamical systems are now consistently accessible by numerical methods. Until we have that revolutionary piece of work climate modelling will continue to be equivalent to blindly shoving a pin into a 10^∞ dimensional phase space and hoping to get the correct answer. It is simply absurd. When I mention this severe limitation to the faithful they usually come back some time later and suggest that I probably haven’t heard of ‘sensitivity testing’ in model hindcasting or whatever and fondly imagine that in this banal statement they have somehow vaulted clean over the inherent unpredictability in non-linear dynamical systems.
There’s nothing wrong with having a shot at it and it can be highly instructive in formalising what you think you know about the system but to spend vast sums on the effort when you haven’t even demonstrated that what you are attempting to achieve is in fact even remotely possible in the first place and then go on to formulate astronomically expensive and destructive government policy on the outcome is the very definition of gibbering insanity.
+1776
Climate spending is way worse than simply a waste of money, but I am loving the schadenfreude. Gang Green is finally getting its comeuppance.
+10
I’ve been in gov’t, big business, startups, non-profits — they all have people in them and their share of corruption. You will even find it in the Trump Whitehouse and the Kremlin (surprise!). And the Clinton quote above is False http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-stupid-quote/ — please check Snopes next time. BTW, I’m a big fan of this site for years now. Keep up the good work.
Is it okay if I check more than Snopes? I don’t really trust their conclusions.
(The quote is false, yes.)
Snopes is notoriously wrong. I treat them like Wiki – perhaps a good place to start, but never the final authority on the veracity of a question.
I think it would be useful to devote some funds to reproducing past papers in climate science and elsewhere. It would be handy to know which papers are correct and which are faulty.
After all it’s what you know which ain’t so that causes most trouble.
Climate science is based almost entirely (in the words of a former NOAA researcher) on computer models. These models are curve-fit to historical proxy data using fudge factors. Each climate model has its own fudge factor – implying that it isn’t only the physics of the CO2 – water vapor relationship that is not known.
Accountability – without it, nothing works. If these climate scientists’ livelihoods were dependent on their making useful predictions (projections), this waste of money would be self-correcting.
That’s what I like about the markets. There is no “committee” that decides who is right and who is wrong.
No wonder all that money spread around to all the different agencies to target climate change ain’t worth much. The AGW science crowd, thanks to their fear…feckless leaders, nickle and dimed themselves to death.
It was not about worth or efficiency. It was about reward and messaging spread across many agency outlets and budgets. That difference is hard to understand by most everyday working people. It does make sense to over reach political strategists with confidence they will not be caught or even called out by a friendly press community. It also has precedence in the Bill Clinton era of funded community organizations (Enterprise Communities) as payoff for get out the vote efforts. You know it’s targeted waste when they design and fund the entire giveaway govt. program with IG oversight excluded.
It’s about time.
Not sure the best way to embed a Twitter video . Maybe this :
pic.twitter.com/q7dZqSf10C
Or this :
//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
In any case , greatest 12 sec vid ever .
Don’t forget this unconstitutional piece of work.
-Consumer Financial Protection Bureau-
WSJ today
Justice Department Files Brief Arguing CFPB’s Structure is Unconstitutional
Department lawyers argue bureau’s structure creates separation-of-powers problems
“A waste of your money ” Yep . Budget Director Mulvaney pure genius ! The easiest $Trillion dollars ever saved and wipe out the Obama “legacy ” at the same time . A win /win all round .
Mr .Mulvaney well done ! Long time coming but worth the wait . Too bad the money already blown on this heist can’t be returned to tax payers, but one step at a time .
The Science fiction is settled .
Isn’t it great when someone turns the light on.
Bingo!!! Finally, someone is speaking the truth. Now turn that argument on Germany and get them to pay up for NATO.
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/
“Bingo!!! Finally, someone is speaking the truth. Now turn that argument on Germany and get them to pay up for NATO.”
Isn’t that pathetic! Germany pays only about half of its NATO dues. The U.S. pays almost twice as much as is required.
No more Uncle Sucker, world. Trump is in charge now, and Trump is going to insist that other nations play fair and pay their fair share. We do that, and we expect you to do the same.
How did we get so lucky as to get a Trump?! What a difference he makes! If you want to know what leadership is, you are looking at it with Trump. He’s a natural-born leader. He knows where he wants to go, and he knows how to get there, and he is undeterred. Just give him time.