The zealous overselling of climate science has come home to roost…as budget cuts

From the American Geophysical Union and the “this is what #manntastic claims get you” department.

PRESIDENT TRUMP PROPOSES STEEP, DEVASTATING CUTS TO SCIENCE AGENCIES

12 February 2018

Washington, D.C.—The following statement is attributable to American Geophysical Union (AGU) Executive Director/CEO Chris McEntee:

President Trump’s proposed budget ignores the valuable role science agencies play in nearly every facet of American life. The proposal provides a steep increase in military spending and infrastructure but saddles federal scientific agencies with extremely damaging cuts. What the President’s budget fails to recognize is that these agencies provide much of the technical expertise needed to help realize his Administration’s policy priorities.

When we underfund or cut funding to science agencies and their programs, the implications reach far beyond the agencies themselves and the scientific enterprise. Data and applied research from science agencies like NASA and NOAA are critical to U.S. military operations and defense-related systems. Scientific research helps to create infrastructure that is sustainable and effective, and with the release of such a large infrastructure plan that invests trillions in America’s roads and bridges, we need a budget proposal that will ultimately protect that infrastructure from long-term impacts like climate change. We’re discouraged to see yet another White House proposal that indicates either the Administration’s continued lack of understanding about the crucial benefits scientific research provides to Americans or worse, their persistent disregard of the value of science to society.

We recognize that Congress ultimately sets the budget through the appropriations process and we call on members of Congress to set funding levels for science agencies that reflect their important research and programs, and provide funding that will move American innovation forward.

###

My take: I’m a fan of science, no, let me qualify that. I’m a fan of QUALITY science. Science done correctly, without an agenda, without politics, and without the need to drive the next funding cycle.

A lot of this reduction is driven by Trump (and many others) getting fed up with science trying to blame just about everything on the universal boogeyman, climate change.

Just like the stock market recently, I see this as a correction for government funded science that has become bloated. We’ve traded quantity for quality.  And. there’s a lot of redundancy.

A little bird told me that NASA GISS / GISTEMP might be on the chopping block since it’s clearly redundant, and alarmist, just recycling NOAA data by applying their own special sauce. I might have had something to do with that. We can all live happily and productively without NASA GISTEMP, but NOAA as an agency actually does provide useful things in Americans daily lives; such as our daily weather forecasts, weather warnings, etc. NASA GISTEMP, not so much.

President Eisenhower was prescient in this issue of science and government funding:

“Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

“In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

“Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

“The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.

“Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

“It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system – ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society. — President Dwight D. Eisenhower, January 17, 1961 [Boldface added.]

 

0 0 vote
Article Rating
129 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
February 12, 2018 1:39 pm
Sheri
Reply to  honestliberty
February 12, 2018 1:49 pm

Looks like CNN—who does it for free since they adore the left and despise and villify the right. My guess is CNN would publish anything that made Trump look bad. It would be fun to find out just how much stupid could be sold to them.
(As for PNAS, they’re quivering over the words “budget cuts”. Again, publish anything to sell the lie.)

Reply to  Sheri
February 12, 2018 2:24 pm

Interestingly, my coworker just asked me my thoughts on this article. I think I raised enough basic science questions that he at least recognized how little he knows. I also said that one a source had proved itself incredulous, I won’t waste my time. However with this topic I might read it and pick it apart for him

Latitude
Reply to  Sheri
February 12, 2018 2:25 pm

Report: CNN to Lay Off up to 50 Employees After Missing Revenue Targets
http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2018/02/12/report-cnn-lay-off-50-employees-missing-revenue-targets/
…no bonus and tax cuts for them

Sara
Reply to  Sheri
February 12, 2018 2:42 pm

CNN losing money? Oooops! I can only wonder why….

Trebla
Reply to  Sheri
February 12, 2018 3:35 pm

Sheri: Should we tune in to Fox to get the “real” truth?

Latitude
Reply to  Sheri
February 12, 2018 3:43 pm

“I might read it and pick it apart for him”
Show him this…..pretty sure NASA knows what a satellite is….how did they find acceleration when it went the other way?comment image

MarkW
Reply to  Sheri
February 12, 2018 4:19 pm

Trebla, yes.

Leonard Lane
Reply to  Sheri
February 13, 2018 3:32 pm

Has there been any positive return on investment in GAGW? I have not heard of anything but negative returns–primarily through starving real science.

TA
Reply to  Sheri
February 13, 2018 8:22 pm

“Should we tune in to Fox to get the “real” truth?”
You’ll get closer to the truth watching Fox than you will with CNN. CNN has gone off the deep end in their desire to destroy Trump, but instead, it looks like Trump is destroying CNN.
Fox reported tonight that CNN pays airports to broadcast CNN on their airport televisions instead of any of the other channels. And they are still losing money and credibility.
The Leftwing News Media propaganda machine is a great danger to the freedoms we all enjoy. They create false realities (and most of them live in that false reality) that make it almost impossible to govern ourselves properly becasue too many millions have been fed a bunch of leftwing propaganda and believe it and then make the wrong choices at the voting polls.
Take them down, Trump. That would be your most important contribution to the future of our free nations.
I’m watching Fox News right now and they are reporting on a Trump assistant named Porter who was accused of abusing his two wives and ultimately lost his job because of it.
But that’s not good enough for the Left and the Leftwing News Media. They want to turn this story into proof that President Trump condones wife abuse and all other kinds of abuse of women and then they will try to use this narrtive against him in the 2018 elections. The Democrats are nasty. Down and dirty.
It’s understandable since the Left is trying to destroy Trump and will use any angle they can find in that effort. Even if they have to make one up, like this “guilt by association” ploy of theirs.
What irritates me about Fox News Is they give credence to this leftwing propaganda and cover it like it means what the Left says it means. It’s not relevant to me and shouldn’t be relevant to any fair-minded person.
Trump didn’t abuse any of these women, and Fox News shouldn’t take its cue about what is important in the news from the Leftwing Media. Unfortunately, they do it much too often.
Here’s a hint to Fox News Channel: Assume that any story the Leftwing News Media puts out about Trump is distorted and misinterpreted until proven otherwise. Don’t start off assuming the accusations are true. Then later, we find out the claims were all a pack of lies, as we have seen in the past.
The wife beating/woman abusing theme the Left is trying to hang around Trump’s neck is being helped along by Fox coverage. It’s irritating to no end to finally have a conservative channel on television and then they follow the lead of the liars and smearers on the Left.
The Leftwing News Media had a monopoly on the “truth” on tv up until 1996, when Fox started up. I used to grind my teeth every time I had to watch that leftwing bs, and didn’t have an internet back then to voice my complaints. Things are a lot better now. 🙂

Reply to  Sheri
February 14, 2018 10:16 pm

Trebla: Do you watch a lot of TV?

James Keil
Reply to  honestliberty
February 12, 2018 4:42 pm

Sealevel.colorado.edu finally updated their data from 2016 which until yesterday showed SLR at 3.4 mm / yr. Today it shows as 3.1 mm / yr. It was Steve Nerem two Fridays ago who replied to my email query that the reason for the two-year delay was they were switching to a new database. Now we have CNN quoting him about the future dangers to accelerating sea rise.

Reply to  James Keil
February 13, 2018 10:27 am

Sheesh

Reply to  James Keil
February 13, 2018 10:28 am

I really doubt the level of accuracy they claim. Within mms? Nah, I don’t buy it

Hocus Locus
Reply to  James Keil
February 13, 2018 11:28 pm

Sealevel.colorado.edu
Internet server lowered into a mile-deep borehole?

ScottM
Reply to  honestliberty
February 12, 2018 7:52 pm

oil companies

Phoenix44
Reply to  ScottM
February 13, 2018 1:27 am

Yes, because people who work for oil companies have a different Earth to live on..,no, wait, it’s because they don’t care about children…no, wait, it’s because they don’t care if the houses they buy are swamped by the sea….no, wait, none of that makes any sense.
It must be the lizards. yes, that’s it, it’s the lizards.

Phil R
Reply to  ScottM
February 13, 2018 7:07 am

Phoenix44,

It must be the lizards. yes, that’s it, it’s the lizards.

Funny you should say that.
Iran accuses West of using lizards for nuclear spying
https://www.timesofisrael.com/iran-accuses-west-of-using-lizards-for-nuclear-spying/

MarkW
Reply to  ScottM
February 13, 2018 12:12 pm

Are we fitting them with lizard sized cameras?

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  honestliberty
February 12, 2018 10:09 pm

If you dig deep enough into the actual report on the supposed scientific climate study you will see that there has not been any acceleration. And there has been no acceleration even if count the adjustments for ENSO and Pinatubo. AGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGH The only acceleration is the computer projections. This science study is a fraud and CNN was duped. But of course all media now have drank from the alarmist AGW elixir. Between 1901 and 2010 the average sea level rise has been 1.8mm per year according to Houston JR Dean RG (2011). The study authors said that the total rise in the ocean levels was 7cm in 25 years which works out to 2.8mm per year in the last 25 years. They go on to say that their findings agree with the generally accepted rise of 3mm per year. Now you will say that the difference between 2.8 and 1.8 proves there is an acceleration but dont forget the graph only compares since 2005 and furthermore the data was adjusted for ENSO and Pinatubo effects. Even for the graph it doesnt appear that the line is greater than a 45 degree angle. And if you read the study abstract the authors say that the acceleration in the last 25 years has been .084mm + or – .025 mm/year squared ???? probably a typo. But the smoking gun in the whole study proving that it is a fraud is that they used a computer model to adjust the acceleration rate because the authors corrected for Glacial Isostatic Adjustment which raised the acceleration by .25 mm/year !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!??????????. If that correction was not used then that would mean there has been a deceleration not an acceleration. Dont forget that us skeptics are reviewing computer model reports which are produced by paid scientists for their work to try to prove AGW is real and us skeptics are unpaid defenders of the truth having to prove these reports are frauds. It is a never ending battle. So far we have been catching the gotchas in the reports but what happens if they start to fabricate the data? Willis on a recent WUWT report demonstrated that there has been NO acceleration in sea level rise in recent memory.

Brent Hargreaves
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
February 13, 2018 12:37 am

Good post, Alan. You queried the units of acceleration: mm per annum per annum (squared) is correct, not a typo.

Reply to  Alan Tomalty
February 13, 2018 6:36 am

Thank you these are the types of responses I need for clarification. What I assumed, more after the fact adjustments. How they sleep at night is beyond me. No morals

MarkW
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
February 13, 2018 12:13 pm

There morals tell them that the goal they are after is so righteous that it justifies anything they chose to do, in order to advance the goal.

Reply to  Alan Tomalty
February 14, 2018 12:20 am

Some time around the later half of the 19th century the british sent out ships doing science all over the world. In Australia around the coast they marked and dated rocks that were dry at low tide. These rocks have a line that shows low tide, surprise surprise they are still accurate,in 150 years with the 1to 3 mm per year they should be showing a difference?

Ross King
February 12, 2018 1:40 pm

https://climatism.wordpress.com/2018/02/13/our-planet-has-enjoyed-10-warm-periods-during-the-past-10000-years/
…. and 9 cool periods.
Look at the graphs, folks, and compare them with where we are today!!!!!!!!
Climate-change happens regardless of anthropogenic sources, it would appear?

Latitude
Reply to  Ross King
February 12, 2018 2:55 pm

…and except for one hiccup around 6000….pretty darn regular toocomment image

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Latitude
February 12, 2018 4:51 pm
ScottM
Reply to  Latitude
February 12, 2018 8:15 pm

Clyde – Since it’s evidence, do you plan to ignore it?

higley7
Reply to  Latitude
February 12, 2018 8:43 pm

But, Latitude, look at the last four peaks, including the Modern peak, and you have an almost perfectly straight line downward. This, alone negates the entire climate/global warming scam and warns us that we should be building reliable, temperature and climate resistant energy sources. Nuclear is the way to go, hopefully all molten salt thorium, and then we use coal, oil and gas for pharmaceuticals, plastics, and transportation.

A C Osborn
Reply to  Latitude
February 13, 2018 2:16 am

ScottM February 12, 2018 at 8:15 pm
Clyde – Since it’s evidence, do you plan to ignore it?
Evidence of What exactly.
Lies?
Fraud?
Exaggeration?
Incompetence?

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Latitude
February 13, 2018 7:42 am

Clyde read my post above I demolished that study in my post. Thank you Brent for correcting my momentary lapse of math.

MarkW
Reply to  Latitude
February 13, 2018 12:15 pm

An increase over the last couple of years. Which also happened to be El Nino years.
It doesn’t take much to impress you Clyde.

Reply to  Latitude
February 18, 2018 5:35 am

Reply to Latitude on chart shown above. Gisp2 is several centuries out of sync chronologically. It should be concurrent/match Vostok and Kilimanjaro for oxygen isotope at the YD fast temp rise.

Severian
February 12, 2018 1:42 pm

Old Ike was a wise man, but like Cassandra, no one listened to him, yet his predictions have come true. Just like Cassandra.

Frederic
Reply to  Severian
February 13, 2018 8:57 am

The irony here is Goebels warmers are exactly reverse-Cassandra. They make foolish predictions that always come false but (nearly) all politicians listen to them.

Chris Dawson
February 12, 2018 1:44 pm

The cost of NASA versus Space X for launch is indicative of bloated government science versus focussed private science.

Eric Waller
Reply to  Chris Dawson
February 12, 2018 2:27 pm

Let’s keep the discussion intelligent and not reactionary. Space X benefits from everything NASA has learned and done over the years. They could never handle certain massive hurdles on their own. They are funded by NASA and they launch from NASA facilities. Private companies are sometimes more susceptible to short-term motivations like profit, which don’t always lead to the best outcomes. Markets aren’t always perfect and can suffer from time lags.

John harmsworth
Reply to  Eric Waller
February 12, 2018 3:28 pm

Chris is exactly correct. For sufficient evidence see Bush senior’s call for a Mars project. When NASA was done building bureaucratic castles in the air their budget was $450 billion! End of that dream! Zubrin and others put forward reasonable and realistic proposals at a fraction of that cost but NASA showed no interest at all because there wasn’t enough gravy in it. So, back on the shelf for another 20 years.

Javert Chip
Reply to  Eric Waller
February 12, 2018 3:47 pm

Eric Waller
I’m fine with keeping the discussion Let’s keep the discussion intelligent and not reactionary, but let’s also keep it realistic:
NASA also (should) benefit from everything NASA has learned and done over the years, but NASA can’t because it has become a middle-aged bureaucracy. The under-30 average age of SpaceX engineers compares favorably with NASA’s average for launch of the 1st moon mission (48+ years ago).
Competition generally ensures new blood & ideas get a chance – but not in a bureaucracy. NASA hasn’t launched a man into space in 7 years (and counting).
I am delighted & frankly amazed SpaceX and Amazon were ever allowed to “compete” with NASA.

Javert Chip
Reply to  Eric Waller
February 12, 2018 3:56 pm

mea culpa to anyone trying to read my above post.
Plainly, I need (adult) editing supervision. And a drink.

Edwin
Reply to  Eric Waller
February 12, 2018 4:11 pm

Sorry Eric, I worked around NASA, the Space Center and Cape Canaveral for most of my life. Great organization when Saturn was going. NASA generally lost its way starting about the middle of the Shuttle Program. It needs to be gutted and re-constructed. It has grown way too bureaucratic. Many in middle and upper management are good examples of what is wrong with almost all the federal bureaucracies. They can’t be fired so if they caught making major mistakes they just get shifted around, that is if we are lucky. Eisenhower’s warnings are today personified in the whole CAGW movement within government. Unaccountable so called “scientists” (aka technocrats) trying to force unnecessary, inappropriate, and profoundly expensive socioeconomic policies on the world, but especially the USA. Sometimes in government the only way to fix something that is broken is the defund it, wait a year or two and start all over.

MarkW
Reply to  Eric Waller
February 12, 2018 4:21 pm

Eric, if that’s the game you want to play, then NASA too should be benefiting from all the experience NASA has generated over the years.
Yet somehow it is only private companies that are able to take advantage of NASA’s experience.
Why is that?

MarkW
Reply to  Eric Waller
February 12, 2018 4:22 pm

I love it when supporters of government try to pretend that government has no flaws.
Yes, the free market isn’t perfect, but it’s leaps and bounds better than government and darn near everything.

JC
Reply to  Eric Waller
February 12, 2018 5:07 pm

Speaking as someone who has worked on many NASA programs over the years, the only thing NASA has learned and done is to make it impossible to do ANYTHING for less than $1 million. If you really want to know where the technology came from to send a man to the moon it came from the private sector. NASA simply paid for it.

Gums
Reply to  Eric Waller
February 12, 2018 6:27 pm

Space X rebuilt the pad they destroyed without using taxpayer $$$. And they prolly pay “lease” $$$ just to use and maintain the two pads they now employ.
I also had the impresion that what NASA and NOAA and other taxpayer-funded agencies came up with was to help private industry and we lowly “proles”. Just saying…

higley7
Reply to  Eric Waller
February 12, 2018 8:45 pm

Space X is doing a great job, but no one should pretend that it has anything to do with making money. The landing of the two side rockets within a second of each other on separate pads was the coolest thing I have ever seen—right out of science fiction.

Mark - Helsinki
Reply to  Eric Waller
February 12, 2018 11:48 pm

SpaceX are good at blowing up rockets.

Phoenix44
Reply to  Eric Waller
February 13, 2018 1:32 am

And why could the private sector not have learnt everything NASA has learnt, but at lower cost?
And how much has NASA learnt from the private sector in all sorts of ways, including computers and chips and so on?
Profit is not a short-term motivation, particularly for big, capital projects as there is no way the investment can get a return except over many years. Businesses invest hundreds of millions knowing it will take 10+ years to get their money back – how is that short-term?
And markets are always “perfect” unless somebody interferes in them. A market is just a willing buyer and a willing seller. What is not perfect about that?

MarkW
Reply to  Eric Waller
February 13, 2018 12:16 pm

Mark, so did NASA for many years.

Reply to  Eric Waller
February 13, 2018 8:00 pm

SpaceX does not suffer from the mind numbing government bureaucracy that NASA represents. Besides, NASA has always depended on aerospace corporations to design and build spacecraft under contract. The Space Shuttle was designed and built by Rockwell with many subcontractor corporations. SpaceX is free to make innovative designs and new approaches – it has paid off bigtime.

dan no longer in CA
Reply to  Chris Dawson
February 12, 2018 3:10 pm

NASA doesn’t do launches. They buy launches from United Launch Alliance (Delta and Atlas) and Space-X. For manned flights, they buy Soyuz.

Mark - Helsinki
Reply to  dan no longer in CA
February 12, 2018 11:49 pm

and rightly so, you’d have to be insane to get into a SpaceX rocket, with a very high probability you will be scattered through he atmosphere

A C Osborn
Reply to  dan no longer in CA
February 13, 2018 2:52 am

Based on the talks given by NASA leadership the decline started when the US won the Space Race by getting to the Moon first.
There was no government appetite for trying for Mars, so that just left the ISS and the Shuttle program.

MarkW
Reply to  dan no longer in CA
February 13, 2018 12:18 pm

Mark, what percentage of shuttle launches killed the astronauts aboard?
What percentage of Apollo craft killed or nearly killed the astronauts aboard?
And they were both man rated, something Space-X has not attempted yet.

Reply to  dan no longer in CA
February 13, 2018 8:05 pm

SpaceX will soon be doing manned launches, which is good news as it gets us away from Soyuz.

TA
Reply to  dan no longer in CA
February 13, 2018 8:45 pm

“and rightly so, you’d have to be insane to get into a SpaceX rocket, with a very high probability you will be scattered through he atmosphere”
SpaceX will have an escape procedure that might save the crew even if the rocket does explode.
https://www.theverge.com/2015/5/6/8558895/spacex-pad-abort-test-succesful

john
February 12, 2018 1:46 pm

Science in Benjamin Franklins day…
http://www2.avs.org/benjaminfranklin/chaplin.html

markl
February 12, 2018 1:47 pm

I’m guessing the “anti science” card will be played to the max by the alarmists. I’m still waiting for some real science information from the WH to counter the climate disinformation that’s been disseminated by the pseudo scientists and the MSM.

beng135
Reply to  markl
February 12, 2018 3:16 pm

It’s always a card game. Play the race card, or the “what about the children?” card, or the hate card, now the anti-science card. “Climate science”, as it is now, is already anti-science.

Leonard Lane
Reply to  beng135
February 13, 2018 3:35 pm

Yes beng135. Climate seance sucks so much money up that real and honest science is suffering.

February 12, 2018 1:49 pm

IMO, most of this was always unconstitutional. There is a little room, by way of national defense & the need for keeping tabs on and reporting on the state of the union, but the vast majority of it seems to me to be rank stinking crony socialist pork…to which we quickly became accustomed. Sigh.

rocketscientist
February 12, 2018 1:49 pm

Imagine the Sisyphean task of NOT allowing the climate to change.

February 12, 2018 2:09 pm

Well, They said the science was settled; therefore by their own lips, their fate was sealed.
“Hoist with his own petard” comes to mind.
Sadly a lot of good science will also be damaged.
Time for a class action against Mann, Gore, et.al ???

Graham
February 12, 2018 2:15 pm

“…we need a budget proposal that will ultimately protect that infrastructure from long-term impacts like climate change.” Like we need a hole in the head. 100% cut would lance the boil holus-bolus.

Latitude
Reply to  Graham
February 12, 2018 2:27 pm

How would they know?….they have not made one single correct long term prediction yet…and they have no idea what the impacts would be

Ross King
February 12, 2018 2:18 pm

With this crowd of tendentiously Sinecure Seeking, supernumerary CAGW Scientists, I’d advocate either re-education in the rice-paddies, Mao-style, or banishment to the country, Pol Pot style.

John harmsworth
Reply to  Ross King
February 12, 2018 3:31 pm

How about shoveling snow somewhere way up North? You know, where they won’t ever see snow anymore?

Ross King
Reply to  John harmsworth
February 12, 2018 3:33 pm

John H …. +10 and more!!!

JBom
February 12, 2018 2:22 pm

I’d start with defunding then dismemberment then disestablishment of the National Science Board, the National Academies of Science and the National Science Foundation.
Ha ha

Bruce Cobb
February 12, 2018 2:27 pm

Looks like swamp-draining to me. Hey, I hear France has openings available for them.

Ross King
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
February 12, 2018 3:12 pm

Bruce ….. Ship em off pronto and let the Frogs pay em!!

Doug
February 12, 2018 2:31 pm

is this a cut where instead of increasing spending 15% we only increased it 10%?

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  Doug
February 12, 2018 9:21 pm

Good point. At this time I don’t think we know.
That’s one of many ways the government plays with words.
Agencies (offices within) will spend every last $ at the end of the budget year.
It would be traumatic to still have $100 left unspent.
Thus, each budget cycle, they can say we could have used more.

Gary Pearse
February 12, 2018 2:31 pm

Science doesnt do much for our infrastructure. Uhh…, that would be engineering. Military, uh engineering, too. One science that has burned up trillions of valuable resources to the detriment of everything else has yet to show a scintilla of actual evidence that we have a problem (broken model runs don’t show anything). Projections of T have proven to be 200-300% wrong, even when they’ve had the chance to revise it every 5 yrs and even when they have actively adjusted observations to better fit their dCO2/dT formula – killing the 2 decade Pause by Karlization of temperatures was one of the more drastic ones.
This is a stark example of what happens when you let agenda driven institutions decide what government funded research should be done. Does GRL think we should have EU/UN plan our research for our infrastructure? Or our Military, like they did for climate? We could cut the science budget by 90% and and be perfectly all right. The trillions could redo our infrastructure, put people to work and solve a host of real problems. Higher education could be defunded 60% and actually benefit education. This would free up money to overhaul and rededicate children’s education with all the social engineering, political correctness removed and real math, science, history, grammar, literature, including poetry, art, logic/ethics and civics that stress both freedoms and responsibilities of citizens….

philincalifornia
February 12, 2018 2:35 pm

This was always going to happen. Even making genuine mistakes in analysis of scientific data only leads to bad things happening, let alone phony conclusion confirmation bias, and outright faking of the data.
When idiots, liars, charlatans, spivs and politicians get together to make a consensus of the above, there’s only one way to fix it, and believe me, I’ve been there – “You’re Fired”, with entire departments preferably. Trump knows this and they can squeal all they want as long as long as they’re not being paid by taxpayers to squeal.
It’s like being constipated and then suddenly not being constipated X1000. In this case, it might be X 10^6 or 10^9.
What do you reckon Nick? …. nothing a bit of confirmation bias can’t fix ?? Dream on.

milwaukeebob
February 12, 2018 2:39 pm

Data and applied research from science agencies like NASA and NOAA are critical to U.S. military operations and defense-related systems. And I’m sure the military will prioritize and get it as needed per their increased budget. Duh!
Scientific research helps to create infrastructure that is sustainable and effective, Where has that happened? Like high-speed rail? And how?
we need a budget proposal that will ultimately protect that infrastructure from long-term impacts like climate change. THAT is such an inane and incomprehensible statement! Forget that it, of course, includes “climate change”. HOW IS MORE GOVERNMENT RESEARCH MONEY (our tax dollars) GOING TO PROTECT INFRASTRUCTURE? Can anybody answer this question with actual examples? To date, how has that worked out so far? What GOVERNMENT RESEARCH MONEY has protected (in any way) our existing infrastructure? Please, just one case. A bridge that didn’t fall, maybe? A spill-way that didn’t collapse, maybe? A gas line that didn’t rupture and explode, maybe? Electrical lines that didn’t fall in the wind causing a wild fire, maybe? ANYTHING directly linked to GOVERNMENT RESEARCH MONEY that would show the ROI was worth it…

CD in Wisconsin
February 12, 2018 2:57 pm

“…….My take: I’m a fan of science, no, let me qualify that. I’m a fan of QUALITY science. Science done correctly, without an agenda, without politics, and without the need to drive the next funding cycle.
A lot of this reduction is driven by Trump (and many others) getting fed up with science trying to blame just about everything on the universal boogeyman, climate change…..”.
AMEN ANTHONY!
I’ve said this before, and I’ll say it again: Anyone who thinks that I (and no doubt many others at this blog) are stupid enough to believe climate science is infallible and incorruptible by the money and the politics surrounding anti-fossil fuels activism…..well, if they believe that, then I own a bridge in Brooklyn that I’ll sell them at a really nice price. I’m been around the block of life too many times now not to understand how vulnerable science is to corruption….and I’m not even a scientist. It is sad knowing so many people are naive and gullible enough to believe otherwise.
I’ve followed this website enough to know that the alarmists are ignoring and trying to suppress the issues that make the CAGW theory/narrative quite problematic. I’m no psychologist, but I believe that I see it in the things they say and in their behavior. Mikey Mann is at the head of the pack in that department.
CAGW morphed into a religious and political doctrine quite a few years ago. In the eyes of their believers, such doctrines are always infallibly true and must never be questioned. Looking at the CAGW theory that way is about as far removed from science as you can get…and our constitution say something about the separation of Church and State, doesn’t it?
If one keeps crying that there is a climate wolf at the door when the wolf is never there, people will eventually stop believing and listening. It should not be surprising to see Trump decide to stop funding those cries. Let the ranting and raving begin.

Brent Hargreaves
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
February 13, 2018 1:21 am

Wise words, CD, and I do hope you’re right about fatigue setting in after so much wolf-crying.
I once listened to a long interview with Michael Mann and was struck by his passion and sincerity. He and his co-religionists are not engaged in deliberate self-serving deceit: no, they’re true believers; they’re corrupted by their “noble cause” and will go down in history as wolf-criers.

Sommer
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
February 13, 2018 7:28 am

Take a look at this investment site run by someone who seems highly qualified to understand. It was linked in a James Delingpole article.
http://www.coolfuturesfundsmanagement.com
How will we ever get out of the mess we’re in with pension fund investments tangled up in this “religious and political doctrine”?

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Sommer
February 13, 2018 7:55 am

You didnt read it carefully enuf. That fund is saying that AGW is a hoax. Those people are leading the way fighting the hoax.

CD in Wisconsin
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
February 13, 2018 8:20 am

@Brent: Brent, I don’t know if Mann and his ilk actually DO believe that the CAGW narrative is scientifically sound and true. His hokey hockey schtick graph tells me though that he IS engaging in deliberate deceit. If he actually does believe the CAGW narrative, then he is a poor scientist and probably should not be teaching at Penn State or anywhere else.
@Sommer: We humans have a loooong history of believing in myths–things that simply are not true. Sadly, these myths get embedded quite deeply in many or all sectors of society, including corporations, financial markets and government, before they are ever disproven. Sometimes they are never disproven even though they are myths. We believe because we are genetically wired to believe and need to believe. Or we believe because it fits in so nicely with our political belief system and political agenda. It’s an emotional and spiritual thing, if not a political one. Once the CAGW narrative becomes a doctrine that we are emotionally, spiritually and politically devoted to, it becomes detached from science. When that happens, only the “science” that supports the doctrine is given any attention and merit. At that point, it does indeed seem very difficult to drive it out of society.

Sommer
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
February 13, 2018 5:22 pm

Alan Tomalty, I did read it carefully and I’m impressed with this group.
I was asking about all of the pension funds that are based on deception? What will happen to peoples’ pensions when the AGW deception is fully realized?

markl
February 12, 2018 2:57 pm
Editor
February 12, 2018 2:59 pm

Far too much “science for the sake and in service of advocacy” and way too much [what Judith Curry calls] ‘climate science taxomony’ [worthless recycling existing data into different forms and putting it in different boxes with no advancement in our knowledge).

PiperPaul
Reply to  Kip Hansen
February 12, 2018 4:40 pm

+97
Taxonomy

Brent Hargreaves
Reply to  Kip Hansen
February 13, 2018 1:27 am

“Climate science taxomony”. That’s a new word to me but, aside from the punning potential, I think Judith hits the nail right on its head. Taxonomy! What did Rutherford say about “there’s physics and all the rest is just stamp collecting”.

Moderately Cross of East anglia
February 12, 2018 3:01 pm

Lies, damned lies and climate change exaggerations coming home to roost, well done President Trump…

Warren Blair
February 12, 2018 3:05 pm

Government spending based on unvetted science . . .
The current Ridd saga is your baby.
Seminal paper highlights science ‘waste’ with detailed AU examples.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025326X17309955?via%3Dihub

Bruce Cobb
February 12, 2018 3:07 pm

“Data and applied research from science agencies like NASA and NOAA are critical to U.S. military operations and defense-related systems.”
Hilarious. They should do stand-up.

TonyL
February 12, 2018 3:08 pm

When the CAGW alarm took off, it was apparent to even casual onlookers who were well versed in the physical sciences, that something was *very* wrong at best, and it was just another environmentalist scare at worst.
Al Gore, the “nation’s first environmentalist vice president” saw to it that CAGW got the funding, and the scare took on a like of it’s own.
Even though the science was terrible, biology, chemistry, physics, and others said nothing. Indeed, biology, in particular, jumped in with both feet. Even when CAGW came under severe, and well justified criticism, the other fields said nothing.
It became apparent that CAGW was pulling down the hard earned reputations of all the other fields. Still silence. It was easy to see, when the CAGW bubble burst, all other fields would be tarred with that same black brush.
Still silence.
Now, everybody pays.

markl
Reply to  TonyL
February 12, 2018 3:19 pm

“…. Even though the science was terrible, biology, chemistry, physics, and others said nothing…..” That’s because it turned into a witch hunt with well orchestrated personal attacks against the skeptics that usually ended up with their removal from employment.

TonyL
Reply to  markl
February 12, 2018 3:29 pm

Sadly, all too true.
It really needed to be nipped in the bud, before the politics and big money too over. The horror shows of personal destruction are all too well known.

Ozonebust
February 12, 2018 3:12 pm

The budget changes are in support of the following report by the Pentagon. Pure alarm-ism and population manipulation from the Washington crazies.
POTUS Trump my be cutting science research in response to the alarmist and misleading predictions of a group of climate scientists in favor of another group of off the planet misleading alarmists located at the Pentagon.
Eisenhower can continue to be quoted about military industrial control, but it took affect some time ago. They are just shifting up another gear. The following article is worth reading.
https://www.blacklistednews.com/article/63676/pentagons-nuclear-doctrine–retrograde-and.html

Reply to  Ozonebust
February 12, 2018 3:29 pm

And for those that feel they should rise up and do something about – check mate!
https://www.blacklistednews.com/article/63668/domestic-terrorism-bill-targets-patriot-groups-and-citizen.html

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Ozonebust
February 13, 2018 8:06 am

Make no mistake The Chinese Communist party is still hell bent on your destruction and Russia is ruled with an iron fist by a stone cold killer Mr Putin. To think that those 2 countries are your friends is laughable Shame on you Ozonebust.

J Mac
February 12, 2018 3:14 pm

“….we need a budget proposal that will ultimately protect that infrastructure from long-term impacts like climate change.”
Full Stop! No more! Cut off all funding for Climate Change Chimera! Continue funding for basic atmospheric and geophysical sciences only. American Geophysical Union (AGU) Executive Director/CEO Chris McEntee must be a ‘slow learner’…. or a willing recipient of the filthy lucre generated by ‘climate change’ fear mongering.
‘Climate Change’ is not a USA budget priority, anymore than ‘Orbital Change’ or ‘Plate Tectonics Change’ need to be. Mankind has become an evolutionary success because we were forced to adapt to and thrive on a world subject to continual climate, tectonic and orbital changes.
We can’t control the global climates. We can’t control plate tectonics. We can’t control the variations in eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession of the Earth’s orbit. We can ‘adapt and thrive’. It’s why we’re alive!

co2islife
February 12, 2018 3:19 pm

The waste in the Green Programs is totally astonishing.
Wasting Other People’s Money; Renewable Energy Jobs at $60 Million Each
Unfortunately, that headline isn’t a joke, and it highlights the obscene amount of waste involved in Green Energy. There are infinitely better uses for those public dollars, but because of the epically misguided green lobby, money is poured down the green rat hole with absolutely zero benefits to show. “The Clare Solar Farm stands to get … Continue reading
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/11/18/wasting-other-peoples-money-renewable-energy-jobs-at-60-million-each/

zazove
February 12, 2018 3:22 pm

“I’m a fan of science… without an agenda, without politics…”

February 12, 2018 3:29 pm

Redundancy is a very real aspect of current funding waste. The “deplorables”, with their crumbs, understand unnecessary duplication. Does anyone have a list or reference that provides all of the computer centres and related climate science hubs that run models? Trump could use this as an example of waste. The warmistas have had 30 years of free play and gotten nowhere. It is time to sort out both the models themselves and any need for more – very expensive- resources for modelling efforts.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  R2Dtoo
February 13, 2018 8:11 am

Sort out the models Who are you trying to fool?. The climate models will never be correct. A supercomputer the size of the universe would never be able to properly model our earths system. It is just too complex.

John harmsworth
February 12, 2018 3:37 pm

The bass-akwards economics of “Green Energy” is that there are more jobs in Green Energy than in fossil fuels. Like that is a good thing! Who are these idiots?
I say we should hook up treadmills to the windmills and put the Greenies to work making power that is at least more reliable than wind and solar. They can pedal all night and on days when the wind doesn’t blow. For $.07 kw.

Ross King
Reply to  John harmsworth
February 12, 2018 3:50 pm

CD in Wisconsin …. Plus many, many!

Ross King
Reply to  John harmsworth
February 12, 2018 3:59 pm

John Harmsworth …. I love yr idea, compounded with mine for the enforced diaspora of intellectuals to the rice-paddies (Mao) and the fields (Pol Pot). Get CAGW so-called Scientists, to *productive* work … such as electricity generation by treadmill. MannPower???? That would take the self-satisfied grin off his face in short-order. Gormless…. ditto!!!

zazove
February 12, 2018 3:50 pm

“Like that is a good thing!”
If it was a good thing I’d like it. Only an idiot wouldn’t – like a good thing – right?
(I did say if).
Rudi.

EE_Dan
February 12, 2018 4:07 pm

Eisenhower’s farewell speech comes to mind with this:
“Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.
In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalized complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present–and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”
–Farewell Address
Dwight David Eisenhower
Science has been my career and life. It scares me that it has been corrupted by those who are tied to an agenda rather than the pursuit of truth. “Studies” based on falsified models that indicate fat people cause more global warming or globul warming causes women to become prostitutes is useless nonsense and cutting funds for this Cr*P is appropriate and necessary. There is legitimate research that needs to be done, even when is sounds odd but still needs to be funded. Those promoting science Cr@p need to be eliminated from the money flow. Sorry, I had to do a rant.

Gums
Reply to  EE_Dan
February 12, 2018 7:07 pm

Thank you Dan.
Well put.

Streetcred
February 12, 2018 4:27 pm

The ‘publish or perish’ standard of science must be obliterated as it has done immeasurable damage to science in general. The universities and others have milked the system for years and will now be under pressure to maintain their obese bureaucracies through good science reputations.

Sean
February 12, 2018 4:33 pm

What was that famous refrain we hear repeatedly from the last administration, “Elections have consequences”. Seems they do!

Extreme Hiatus
February 12, 2018 4:59 pm

Time for some AGU bake sales and lemonade stands. Or maybe go high tech with GoFundMe.

Michael Jankowski
February 12, 2018 5:00 pm

Any budget cuts are met with the gnashing of teeth by those with vested interests in those budgets. Often this even happens when the budgets simply aren’t increased “enough.”

February 12, 2018 5:11 pm

Somehow, I get the feeling that the Executive Director’s use of the word, “science”, stands for “climate science”, and he is using the general word to express his own interests in the specific area he really has in mind but not saying outright.
I really like cake. I want a piece of cake. Funding of cake is being drastically slashed, which means less cake for me. I, thus, complain that there is a serious oversight in slashing funding for FOOD.

lee
February 12, 2018 5:18 pm

“When we underfund or cut funding to science agencies and their programs, the implications reach far beyond the agencies themselves and the scientific enterprise. Data and applied research from science agencies like NASA and NOAA are critical to U.S. military operations and defense-related systems”
Sounds like a reason to focus.

Tim
February 12, 2018 5:30 pm

An attempt to insert politicised, infiltrated climate science into the same class as all science and science agencies. Nice try.

Stan Robertson
February 12, 2018 5:37 pm

Too much of science has been taken over by people with a leftist agenda. Academic scientists are so predominantly leftist that it is hard to regard them as anything more than just another political pressure group. Legitimate science will pay a price for its one sided politics.

RAH
Reply to  Stan Robertson
February 13, 2018 6:52 am

As they should. Just as the NFL, so called “MSM”, and some in the entertainment industry are or will pay a price.
Couldn’t help but notice watching Chole Kim on the podium receiving her well earned Olympic Gold the commentator mentioning that you see no Olympic athletes or anyone else from any other country kneeling during the National Anthem.
Kids like Kim and Gerard give me hope for the future of my country just like some young troops did when I was an older one.

February 12, 2018 5:46 pm

Welcome and overdue. Draining the climate swamp is easy compared to DoJ scandal and DC swamp. Just remove the CAGW ‘settled science yet more research’ dollars, and the CAGW swamp critters rapidly starve to death and are gone. We just have to ignore (schadenfreud) their starving mewlings. I got a quality set of reality earplugs to block their mewlings. And this is thier beginning mewling.

Michael Anderson
February 12, 2018 7:33 pm

I won’t be losing sleep over budget cuts to a politically biased science department. I’d rather have a strong military than a bunch of arrogant left wing scientists telling me that I’m destroying the planet. God bless Trump!

ScottM
February 12, 2018 7:52 pm

What could possibly go wrong?

Amber
February 12, 2018 9:54 pm

The fake Russia story has servered at least one purpose . Destroyed most of the media’s credibility .
The cuts to “science ” and rent seekers will have a cooling effect on the fraud we have been subject to for over 20 years . Another bonus thanks to President Trump .

WXcycles
February 12, 2018 11:17 pm

When ‘science’ gets political, politics will get ‘science’.
Let those that have ears, hear.
I said to myself in 1992 that green-house theory + UN + media would seriously damage the role and reputation of science for a generation.
Worse than I thought.

Peter S
February 13, 2018 1:19 am

“Science is settled” So why spend any more money

geoffrey pohanka
February 13, 2018 3:25 am

The Climate Industrial Complex…….is being dismantled

milwaukeebob
February 13, 2018 6:40 am

“Nothing diminishes the inherent integrity of the human spirit more than the subversion of science by political servitude.” Time to hit the reset button in ALL of science research.

subtle2
February 13, 2018 7:29 am

Governments have paid for junk science for centuries.
Kepler had determined that planetary orbits were elliptical, but his government paid him for casting horoscopes. One of his teachers was forced to lecture that the solar system revolved around the Earth.
In the 1570s, a very powerful bank published a “newsletter”. One edition reviewed the nonsense that only governments funded alchemists. Today’s equivalent is interventionist economists and central banking, promising something for nothing.
Bob Hoye

Lars P.
February 13, 2018 7:31 am

“I’m a fan of QUALITY science. Science done correctly, without an agenda, without politics, and without the need to drive the next funding cycle.”
Exactly. Where is that me too hash tag?
About GISS, I ceased since some time to take their temp graph seriously once I saw how they treat their historical data.
(insert here some blinking charts from Steven that so nicely depict what GISS does)
https://realclimatescience.com/?s=GISS
That is not science. If it is really terminated, they richly deserved it.

ResourceGuy
February 13, 2018 9:04 am

Only a 25 percent cut at EPA overall? I do hope some useful programs gained while other political special ops teams were cut by more than that percentage or zeroed out.

Richard Keen
February 13, 2018 1:57 pm

“Scientific research helps to create infrastructure …”
So sez the AGU.
But the infrastructure of which they speak is an incestuous cabal of pseudo-scientific mercenaries who populate the boards of scientific societies and national councils and who influence policy to provide ever more money from the federal teat to buy more mercenaries to produce yet more pseudo-science.
Eventually such card houses must collapse, and perhaps now is the time.
And it’s not just the Donald dealing the collapse; the apathy amongst ordinary citizenry (excluding activists, government types, mercenaries, and, of course, us WUWT readers) about “climate change” is stunning.

February 13, 2018 5:49 pm

Trump to Gavin Schmidt of NASA GISScomment image
Put GISS budget to good use like tracking Near-Earth Asteroids that could hit Earth and searching for aliens (SETI)

%d bloggers like this: