Republican Senators Demand a Probe of Federal Climate Grants

Ted Cruz, James Inhofe, Rand Paul and James Lankford

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Senators Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, James Lankford and Jim Inhofe are demanding an investigation into the National Science Foundation, to determine whether climate “education” grants are being used for political purposes.

GOP senators challenge funding for global warming education program

Four Republican senators say a $4 million program to boost climate reporting by meteorologists is not science, but “propagandizing.”

Four Republican senators called Wednesday for an investigation of National Science Foundation grants, saying the federal agency had ventured beyond science and into political advocacy, particularly with its support of a program to encourage TV weathercasters to report on global warming.

The four senators called for the foundation’s inspector general to investigate the $4 million program to increase climate reporting by meteorologists, saying it “is not science — it is propagandizing.”

Local weathercasters have become one of the primary conduits for news on global warming. One nonprofit helped push the change.
The senators — Ted Cruz of Texas, Rand Paul of Kentucky and James Lankford and Jim Inhofe, both of Oklahoma — said the program, run by the nonprofit Climate Central, epitomizes National Science Foundation grants that stray beyond their appropriate scope of “basic research.”

The senators’ objections were made in a letter to science foundation’s inspector general, Allison Lerner. It charged that the foundation had “issued several grants which seek to influence political and social debate rather than conduct scientific research.” That may have violated not only the agency’s mission but the Hatch Act, the federal law that prohibits federal employees from taking public political positions, the senators said.

Read more:

Click here to see the letter the senators sent to the NSF.

I have no problem with groups providing what they think is “climate education”, but they should do it on their own dime – they shouldn’t send the bill to taxpayers for propaganda efforts which undermine government policy.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
June 21, 2018 6:10 pm

…“is not science — it is propagandizing.”…

It is preaching the Gospel of Climatism.

Ian Macdonald
Reply to  Johanus
June 22, 2018 7:39 am

Hallowed are the Warm-i.

June 21, 2018 6:15 pm

Save the money. The answer is obviously yes.

Do as Prof. Lindzen suggests and cut the CACA “research” budget by 90%.

Reply to  Felix
June 22, 2018 5:08 am


Reply to  Buster
June 23, 2018 5:50 pm

Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Alarmism.

Reply to  Felix
June 22, 2018 7:11 am

“determine whether climate “education” grants are being used for political purposes.”…

Of course it is……what a stupid thing to say

It all goes in one pot….if it’s paying for something over here…..they aren’t having to take money from over there

Robert of Texas
June 21, 2018 6:17 pm

About time Congress started paying attention to the misuse of funds. Now if they will just do anything more than write a report.

Reply to  Robert of Texas
June 22, 2018 5:34 pm

Robert, what is suppose to happen when the budget process follows Regular Order are reviews of how funds are being spent. Yet starting with the 2007 Congress there has been no budget passed by Regular Order. Either budgets have been passed by Continuing Resolution (CRs) or as the last budget was passed as an Omnibus Bill. When the Republicans took back the majority in the House in 2010 they have passed budgets out by Regular Order but Democrats in the Senate have not allow those budgets to even come to a vote. CRs were an invention intended to keep the government running briefly until a budget could be passed through Regular Order. CRs were supposed to be for days, weeks, maybe a month or two. CRs were not suppose to allow and increase in spending but only continue the spending from the previous year. Yet the federal budget from 2007 until today has increased more than in the rest of the USA’s history. Few people appreciate that since 1932 Democrats have controlled Congress 75% of the time. Even when Republicans held a majority it was so small, especially in the Senate, that nothing could be done except with compromise from a few Democrats. Since the 2007 Congress Democratic Leaders have played hard ball, no compromise except where there is overwhelming benefit to Democratic policies. Since Trump’s election they have taken it up a notch. Best example is their screaming about immigration but refusing to do anything about it. They and their friends in the media have decided that anyone not agreeing with them on ALL subjects is evil, a Nazi, etc, etc. Also remember that 95% of the bureaucrats in D.C. gave to Hillary the last election.

June 21, 2018 6:20 pm

Long overdue

June 21, 2018 6:21 pm

Long overdue.

Richard Keen
June 21, 2018 6:31 pm

Wow, these guys are fast!
I saw this story linked on Drudge just yesterday
and was shocked… shocked… to find NSF was funding the likes of Climate Central and Susan Hassol, all agenda-driven purveyors of the Big Lie (in this case, that climate began in 1970 and the Dust Bowl, MWP, etc. never happened).
On Ted, on James, on James, on Rand! Thanks!
I’m sure many will note that Ike predicted this 57 years ago.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Richard Keen
June 21, 2018 6:49 pm

President Eisenhower’s speech writer wrote this for him and Ike agreed with it and gave it as part of his farewell address.

“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.”


Also look at this 2 minute video on George Orwell in his final warning.

Roger Knights
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
June 21, 2018 8:09 pm

“President Eisenhower’s speech writer …”

Perhaps his brother Milton, who was a bigshot at Johns Hopkins and sometimes influenced Ike on matters like these.

Richard Keen
Reply to  Roger Knights
June 21, 2018 10:05 pm

Hey, I don’t care if Nixon or even Checkers wrote the speech, it was a very profound statement spoken by the wisest president in my short lifetime so far.
If only he were my Commander in Chief, instead of Johnson, but I was born a few years too late.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Richard Keen
June 22, 2018 6:52 am

Johnson didn’t like being Commander-in-Chief with a war going on. That’s why he didn’t run for a second term.

Joe Crawford
Reply to  Tom Abbott
June 22, 2018 7:03 am

Hell, Johnson was famous for micomanaging the war. Supposedly, he even got involved in picking out the bombing targets.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Joe Crawford
June 22, 2018 10:46 am

Johnson got involved in targeting because he wanted to keep the press criticism at a minimum, not because he was gungho for the war, which he was not.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
June 22, 2018 8:25 am

LBJ also began the huge expansion of unfunded social give-away programs simultaneously while trying to fund the war. The national debt exploded and we have been in arrears since.

Reply to  Alan Tomalty
June 22, 2018 3:34 am

Ike warned of the Military Industrial Complex, lived through the Manhattan Project. He knew the value of FDR’s mission orientation. The only way to avoid Ike’s “trap” is to continue with progress – more missions. JFK knew that – NASA was a huge mission. The urgent need for a new mission is Fusion. When we fail to progress endlessly there is a dangerous tendency to fall destructively back – witness Climate.
Bertrand Russell made the entire transatlantic stupid, and evil. That must be faced squarely. Orwell’s and Wells’ self-fulfilling recipes are only shades of Russells’, the mephistopheles of the 20th century. Anyone who espouses “the market” for NASA, NSA is simply a flake, a von Hayek London School of Economics charlatain. Intention to progress is key.

June 21, 2018 6:46 pm

It’s about time Republicans grew some balls and did something….. about anything. Remains to be seen what will come of this.

Jeff in Calgary
Reply to  markl
June 22, 2018 10:47 am

Sadly, the likely outcome will be some partisan name calling. Nothing is likely to change. Most of the congressional members are on the take (on everything, not just climate), so nothing will ever change.

Kalifornia Kook
Reply to  Jeff in Calgary
June 22, 2018 4:53 pm

Damn! I hated plussing your comment. But your odds of being right are insurmountably high.

Shawn Rivers
June 21, 2018 6:48 pm

Open up all their email correspondence and expose what they have been actually doing and plotting behind the scenes

June 21, 2018 6:50 pm

“What historian will definitely wonder about in the future centuries is how deeply flawed logic, obscured by shrewd and unrelenting propaganda, actually enabled a coalition of powerful special interests to convince nearly everyone in the world that CO2 from human industry was a dangerous, planet-destroying toxin.”

Richard Lindzen

Reply to  Stephen Heins
June 21, 2018 7:54 pm

Love this quote! I use it often myself.

June 21, 2018 6:54 pm

I covered what Climate Central actually was back in 2012 in a guest post at Steve Milloy’s JunkScience site:

“PBS NewsHour: Climate Central a ‘research organization’; Sorry, no. They advocate solving man-caused global warming”

June 21, 2018 7:00 pm

‘Education’ as used by communists is pretty vile. link Indoctrination bleeds over into brainwashing. Toe the party line or die.

June 21, 2018 7:09 pm

woops…the libs are really going to crank up the children now!

John Minich
June 21, 2018 7:11 pm

According to the law these politicians swore to support and protect (U.S. Constitution), article 1, section 8, “The Congress shall have the power…To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive rights to their respective writings and discoveries:…”. Obviously, no federal grants are allowed. State and local governments are allowed that power (see 10th amendment), but the federal government is forbidden. We are required to obey laws, so I think it only reasonable that government meet the same standard. Maybe we might have a little less subsidized falsehood.

Reply to  John Minich
June 22, 2018 3:46 am

Was the Manhattan Project federal? NASA? Which state got to the moon? Armstrong’s speech was incredibly wise. So the unalianiable right of the pursuit of happiness (from Leibniz) is not to be federally funded? Sounds confederate to me.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  bonbon
June 22, 2018 7:18 am

The Manhattan project was under the Department of War and arguably well within their remit. While NASA is near and dear to my heart (it’s space mission, anyway), it is difficult to see where in the Constitution Congress has the authority to fund its activities, useful though they may be. And please don’t wave the “promote the general welfare” clause; it doesn’t mean what most people think it means.

Reply to  bonbon
June 22, 2018 8:37 am

“So the unalianiable right of the pursuit of happiness (from Leibniz) is not to be federally funded?”
Um … NO!!!
The right to pursue happiness is yours alone. You may pursue it to your heart’s content as long as you don’t infringe upon other rights.
You are not entitled to be happy, nor is anyone else responsible to make you happy. If your pursuit is fruitless it is your burden, and yours alone.
If your need to be happy is dependent on making others unhappy, then you will be in for a miserable life.

Reply to  rocketscientist
June 22, 2018 11:38 am

Quoting Britain’s John Lock are we? The author of the Confederate fake constitution. Never heard of Alexander Hamilton’s Credit Clause? The Reconstruction Finance Corp?

Reply to  bonbon
June 22, 2018 3:07 pm

Wow, some people really get their panties in a wad when told that they don’t have a right to steal from others.

Reply to  John Minich
June 22, 2018 4:29 am

Yeah, that’s a great way for the US to fall behind other countries who fund research at the national level.

Reply to  Chris
June 22, 2018 6:37 am

1) Demonstrate that federal funding has actually sped up the pace of invention.
2) Explain how the US led the world for so many years without federal funding of research.

It really is amazing how socialists actually believe that qll good things come from government.

Reply to  MarkW
June 22, 2018 10:31 am

Not only do all good things come from government but they all believe government spending money creates wealth. I remember Nancy Pelosi stating during the last recession that (I think this over spending on the arts) for every dollar they spend it creates five dollars in economic activity.

Reply to  MarkW
June 22, 2018 11:22 am

It’s amazing how clueless people can be about things, yet pontificate like they are informed. Gee, nuclear power, the funding of ARPANET (which led to the internet), the funding of early stage computers and chip research that contributed substantially to the IT industry, bar codes, GPS. Google’s founders’ graduate research was funded in part by DARPA and NASA, to help better organize the information on the internet. Siri on Apple was a branch off of research done under an ARPA grant. Since you are so badly informed, perhaps you can spend some time getting educated on the topic.

Reply to  Chris
June 22, 2018 11:42 am

This site promotes the von Mises, von Hayek ideology, claiming to be “anti-socialist” or some such long past sell-by date jingoism’s. They don’t have a clue about the uniqueness of the US Constitution, or rather that is the real target. Only nuts, utter yahoo’s would promote von Hayek’s feudal mumbo-jumbo. It is pure alchemy in a modern tech. society.

Reply to  bonbon
June 22, 2018 12:01 pm


By your disparaging comments towards Hayek, are we to assume that you’re Keynesian? Or, some other alternative?


Reply to  bonbon
June 22, 2018 3:13 pm

Wow, freedom is past it’s sell date?
I guess to those who’s only goal in life is to live free on someone else’s dime, freedom is of no use.

PS: If you were half as smart as you think you are, you would attempt to refute von Mises, Hayek and others. Instead you pull the classic socialist nonsense of disparaging everyone who threatens to get between you and a free lunch.

Reply to  Chris
June 22, 2018 12:20 pm


It’s a fair point that government has contributed funding to many advances. And it’s easy for some of us to fall into a knee-jerk anti-gov type mindset. I do think, however, that any discussion on this topic would need to equally address a) the many failures government has had in trying to push/develop technologies; and b) the difference between government acting like a customer and providing a market for a technological innovation (thus inducing private companies to develop it), and the government pursuing advancements on its own. I’ve only read briefly on this subject, so am not qualified to comment further than this, but I personally think these are points that are probably significant.


Reply to  ripshin
June 22, 2018 3:15 pm

Before government can give a penny to any project, it has to take that penny from someone.
Government taxes slow development way more than government spending can ever speed it. And that’s assuming the government money is spent wisely and not wasted on things like climate science.

Reply to  MarkW
June 23, 2018 12:01 am

“Before government can give a penny to any project, it has to take that penny from someone.
Government taxes slow development way more than government spending can ever speed it.”

Zero evidence provided. It must be true because Mark said it. It’s complete rubbish, of course.

Paul Penrose
Reply to  Chris
June 22, 2018 1:57 pm

Chris, you are falling into the trap of assuming that all those things would not have been invented if not for government involvement. You are also forsaking the possibility that even better things would have been invented if not for government interference. In fact, the government can, and often does, slow down innovation. A good example is frequency hopping technology which was invented by Hedy Lemarr during WW2. They government never used the technology, but slapped a top secret label on it and kept it out of public site for decades. How many other times have they done this, or simply squeezed out lone inventors due to their mere funding presence in a field? We will never know.

Reply to  Paul Penrose
June 23, 2018 12:50 am

Paul, I’ve given about 10 examples where the government played a key role or THE role in developing technologies. You are correct that her invention was not adopted, and that the US Navy suffered from a not invented here syndrome. But I don’t see where this would have had commercial success outside of the military sector. And it was used by the US Navy starting in 1962. Private sector companies say that government funding, especially for fundamental research, was critical in the success of the US computer industry. So are you saying these guys don’t know what they are talking about?

Reply to  Chris
June 22, 2018 3:11 pm

It never ceases to amaze me how many lies leftists believe.
1) While ARPANET may have been one of the predecessors to the Internet, it wasn’t the only one. Many people all over the world were working on components that eventually found their way into the internet.

2) Business was the big investor in early computers. Government investment may, (I emphasis MAY) have accelerated development by increasing demand. Government neither created the demand, nor did it create any of the components that made up computers.

3) GPS, helps when the government bans private companies from competing.

4) The troll actually points to Google as something to be proud of.

5) As to the your link, you just prove my point. In your opinion, if government contributed 1 penny, in your opinion it wouldn’t have happened without government PBH.

Reply to  MarkW
June 23, 2018 12:40 am

MarkW – for (1) list some of the other non-government funded predecessors that were happening. No, you can’t cite Mosaic, the predecessor to Netscape, that was developed at NCSA, which is funded in large part by the federal government, and the rest by the state of Illinois. No, you can’t cite the http protocol and the development of the world wide web – that happened at CERN in Europe, under Tim Berners-Lee. CERN is funded by the EU. So exactly which critical components came from industry?
(2) Government may have accelerated? You clearly know nothing about the early days of the computer industry. Some quotes from a history of the US computer industry: “In late 1945, just a few weeks after atomic bombs ended World War II and thrust the world into the nuclear age, digital electronic computers began to whir. The ENIAC (Electronic Numerical Integrator and Computer), built at the University of Pennsylvania and funded by the Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, was America’s first such machine.” “Before 1960, government—as a funder and as a customer—dominated electronic computing. ” “All of the major computer companies during the 1950s had significant components of their R&D supported by government contracts of some type. At IBM, for example, federal contracts supported more than half of the R&D and about 35 percent of R&D as late as 1963 (only in the late 1960s did this proportion of support trail off significantly, although absolute amounts still increased).” “A survey performed by the Army Ballistics Research Laboratory in 1957, 1959, and 1961 lists every electronic stored-program computer in use in the country (the very possibility of compiling such a list says a great deal about the community of computing at the time). The surveys reveal the large proportion of machines in use for government purposes, either by federal contractors or in government facilities (Weik, 1955, pp. 57-61; Flamm, 1988). Source:
You couldn’t be more spectacularly wrong about #2 if tried.
(3) Duh, the federal government had security concerns about GPS as it relates to the preciseness of information. So, for example, it could not be used for precise targeting. But that has nothing to do with the fact that it was federally funded, and there was no way the private sector would have funded an equivalent effort at the time when GPS was deployed. The consumer demand side was not there at that time.
(4) non answer, typical of Mark.
(5) non answer, typical of Mark. Unlike you, I’m a data guy. I don’t knee jerk think that the government is bad or incompetent in all things, nor that the private sector is good in all things. Gee, wasn’t it Enron that shafted the citizens of California to the tune of billions of $ when they promoted the merits of privatization? Wasn’t it Halliburton that increased the cost of canteen services to the military by more than 2X when Dick Cheney touted the benefits of privatization? Does the federal government waste money? Sure, in some cases that is true. But to imply that federal research has been wasted or not contributed greatly to the US economy is not supported by facts. Go ahead, post some supporting links for your points. Else it’s just the usual empty words from you.

Richard Wright
June 21, 2018 7:50 pm

Can anyone identify which weathermen have been involved with these grants from the NSF? I’ve always wondered about the Accuweather GW blog. Has the government been paying Accuweather to run their one -sided, mindless spin on global warming issues?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Richard Wright
June 22, 2018 7:05 am

None of my local tv meteorologists ever take the occasion to connect the weather with global warming/climate change/CAGW.

Most meteorologists seem to have figured out that the CAGW claims are just that and they stay away from making unsubstantiated claims on tv and just stick to trying to forcast the weather for about a week ahead or so.

That’s just the way we want them to do. If they started with the CAGW BS, I think they would get a pretty good pushback from the citizens.

If they want to speculate, they should do it on their own time, but like I said, our local meteorologists don’t appear to want to go down that road. Good for them and good for us. Just the facts, Mam.

J Mac
Reply to  Tom Abbott
June 22, 2018 10:34 am

Connecting ‘climate change’ to weather reporting is a regular occurrence on Seattle TV station broadcasts.

June 21, 2018 7:53 pm

Go Ted Cruz!…He is better in debating the science of “climate change” than any of the climate scientists that I can think of, including Judith Curry…sorry…

Reply to  J Philip Peterson
June 21, 2018 7:57 pm

Here is one example among many:

Dave Miller
Reply to  J Philip Peterson
June 22, 2018 4:26 pm

I have just become a single-issue Cruz supporter.

Reply to  J Philip Peterson
June 22, 2018 4:04 am

[Snip. Personal attacks can be held at many websites, just not this one. -mod]

Reply to  Cwon14
June 22, 2018 4:31 am

The word RINO is trotted out by people who are too clueless or ignorant to know how the Republican Party used to be.

Reply to  Chris
June 22, 2018 6:39 am

Yes, the Republican party used to kowtow and do whatever the Democrats who were charge told them to do.
And the socialists can’t stand that they don’t do this anymore.

BTW, the Democrat party has shifted so far to the left that few of it’s heros would even be permitted into the party anymore.

Reply to  MarkW
June 22, 2018 11:27 am

[Snip] Republicans used to for a clean environment – the EPA was started by Nixon. Nothing to do with kowtowing to Democrats. Republicans used to be for fiscal discipline. Republicans used to be for free trade. Republicans used to view Russia with great skepticism, instead of saying how great Putin is. Republicans used to loyal to our allies, instead of trash talking Mexico, Canada and Germany.

[Let’s just address the point you disagree with, rather than indicting an individual. -mod]

Reply to  Chris
June 22, 2018 3:21 pm

Once again, Chris trots out the “if it’s from government, it’s good” thinking.
Disagreeing the the EPA is proof positive that you don’t care for the environment. Sheesh, that’s pathetic.

It’s really funny to watch a socialist whine about other people lack of fiscal discipline. Obama more then doubled deficit spending, to the vocal cheers of Democrats and other socialists.

I really amazed at your ability to equate one or two Republicans with all Republicans. Yes you can find Republicans that think Putin is a good guy, but way more consider him a dangerous psychopath.

When has Mexico ever been an ally?
Criticizing the head of country is not the same thing as bashing a country, even you should be able to understand that difference.

Reply to  MarkW
June 23, 2018 12:59 am

Unlike you, I don’t think all government is bad. The EPA has done good work, if you disagree, get a passport and travel outside the US. Check out the environment in places like China, India, Pakistan.

As far as deficits, the Republican party has historically claimed itself to be the party of fiscal discipline. You don’t seem to care, since all you do is deflect to Obama, who has been out of office for 18 months. Lame.

Mexico was an ally duringt WWII, and provided workers so the US could have food during WWII when most young men were away. Read a bit of history sometime instead of just spouting nonsense.

Reply to  Cwon14
June 22, 2018 5:00 am

Curry understands what adjustments are, and she knows that CO2 is a primary forcing. Her understanding of those science facts are what drives skeptics crazy. Skeptics had to turn to lesser scientists to get the answers they were looking for.

Reply to  Alley
June 22, 2018 6:40 am

When the truth doesn’t fit. Just make up new lies.

Reply to  Alley
June 22, 2018 12:06 pm


There is very, very little in your comment that is accurate or informative. And it certainly doesn’t add to the conversation.


Reply to  ripshin
June 23, 2018 1:00 am

Rip, so tell us some of the climatologists who are skeptics that have published papers in the last 5 years relating to climate science.

Reply to  Chris
June 23, 2018 9:22 am

Wow, please tell me you’re far, far east of the continental US! That’s a pretty early post for a Saturday morning! 🙂

As to your question, that’s an oddly specific request. Lots of qualifiers you’re throwing in there:

1) Climatologist:. Is this anyone who studies climate (as the word literally means), or are you seeking specific University degrees?

2) Skeptics: what qualifies as a skeptic? Does it count if the individual is merely skeptical of the standard, high, ECS? Or do they also have to be skeptical of other things?

3) Published papers in the last 5 years: Is there something specific about this timeframe? Are we to discount papers from, say, 6 years ago? Or 10? What’s the point of the 5-year qualifier?

4) Relating to climate science:. This at least makes sense in the context of this website. After all, we’re all interested in climate.

If you’d be so kind as to clarify, I’m happy to provide you with some links. Though, I do believe it bears mentioning that most of us here think it’s largely irrelevant WHO publishes what. The main point is robust scientific inquiry. Scientific inquiry that doesn’t beg the question, but rather explores it.

Respectfully (and sleepily)


Krudd Gillard of the Commondebt of Australia
June 21, 2018 8:06 pm

Maybe I’m wrong but I thought Cruz was a RINO. Is he starting to come good or something?

Reply to  Krudd Gillard of the Commondebt of Australia
June 22, 2018 3:05 am

RINOs abhor Ted Cruz.
A Tea Party favorite.

June 21, 2018 8:15 pm

The Senators got us into this predicament, some of them seem to forget they are only employees.

June 21, 2018 8:24 pm
Gary Pearse
June 21, 2018 8:49 pm

Ive had the disgusting feeling that all the bureaucrats and politicians that should face justice for their crimes would go uninvestigated ir charged where violation is clear This includes senior cabinet officials in DOJ, EPA, State Dpt, Revenue,etc. and members of the “clime syndicate” in goverment and academia who have committed crimes. Let’s hope. Maybe they are waiting until “Russian” investigation is over. This fear may be the reason the process is being dragged out to the end of POTUS first term. Dont wait! You might bag a few of those involved in the bogus probe and kill the thing off.

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  Gary Pearse
June 21, 2018 9:08 pm

Don’t expect bureaucrats and politicians to be charged with climate science issues.
An investigation might reveal a crime of some sort just as Mueller’s Russia investigation has spun off a few.
Another example: Lois Lerner

Alan Tomalty
June 21, 2018 9:10 pm

Apparently you can get a grant for studying just how bad climate models are.

Impact of Physics Parameterization Ordering in a Global Atmosphere Model

This is a study that examines ordering of the equations used in climate models.

Below is a quote that lets the cat out of the bag.

“Like most GCMs, parameterizations in E3SM are sequentially split in the sense that parameterizations are called one after another with each subsequent process feeling the effect of the preceding processes. This coupling strategy is noncommutative in the sense that the order in which processes are called impacts the solution………………….In particular, reordering of processes induces differences in net climate feedback that are as big as the intermodel spread in phase 5 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project……………………Many processes in these models must be parameterized because they are too complex or too small‐scale (in space and/or time) to be explicitly represented in models capable of being run for long enough to simulate climate change. For tractability, each of these parameterizations is typically developed in isolation and merged with other parameterized processes via coupling assumptions. This modularity is computationally important because simultaneous solutions of the fully coupled set of governing equations for climate processes is currently impossible. ”


And the “climate scientists” are telling us that they have great trust in their models.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So not only are we taxpayers paying for the models themselves and any study relying on them which is about 95% of all climate studies, we also are apparently paying for studies to study just how bad they really are. That is like paying Willie Sutton money so he can better detect where the cops are so that he can be more successful at robbing the banks.

Wiliam Haas
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
June 21, 2018 9:30 pm

And then there is the issue of the stability of the calculations which no one is talking about.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Wiliam Haas
June 21, 2018 10:18 pm

What they did find out in the early days of climate modeling , was that the models running long term simulations in the end became so uncontrollable and chaotic that they had to purposefully put code into flattening them out in the later years of the simulation. IF A CLIMATE MODEL CANT BE TRUSTED TO RUN A 100 YEAR SIMULATION WITHOUT LOSING CONTROL OF ITS PROJECTIONS THEN WHAT TRUST CAN WE PUT INTO THESE MODELS.?

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
June 22, 2018 12:22 am

I have asked in another post whether any climate modeler ever ran a simulation where they had temporarily deleted the code that links CO2 to temperature increase. That fatal flaw dooms all models irregardless of the other fatal flaws, but it would be still interesting to see what the models came up with without the CO2 code hard coded into them. They probably would come up with some stupid scenario where we would all die because of the aerosols, so forget about what I just asked for.

Wiliam Haas
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
June 22, 2018 12:51 am

Hard coding in that adding CO2 causes warming begs the question and renders the simulations totally useless. How much money has been spent on such useless simulations?

Margaret Smith
Reply to  Wiliam Haas
June 22, 2018 5:09 am

Only the second time I have seen the phrase “begging the question” used correctly. Well done William!

Percy Jackson
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
June 22, 2018 3:08 am

Do you real mean altering the code so that the actual measured infra-red absorption bands of CO2 are removed from the code? That would be equivalent to removing CO2 although and in that case the code has been run and the results are that the earth would freeze after about 50 years.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Percy Jackson
June 22, 2018 12:25 pm

No, I agree CO2 absorbs mostly in the 13 to 18 micron band. However that doesnt mean that it emits enough IR that would then recycle back to the surface to increase temperatures. The physics behind downward back radiation from CO2 emission has not been settled. It hasnt even been measured properly. NASA assumes a solid blackbody emissivity from CO2 and H20 both of 1. Their emissivity IS NOT 1. IT IS A HELL OF A LOT LESS THAN 1. NO RESEARCHER HAS EVER SHOWN THAT THE EMISSIVITY IS ANY GREATER THAN 0.2 AND SOME RESEARCHERS SAY IT IS A LOT LESS THAN THAT. It may well turn out that the earth average temperature is because of the heat generated by the O2 and N2 because they are not at absolute 0. We already know that as temperature increases this emission of DWIR from H2O and CO2 decreases towards 0. If the code for CO2 is taken out and the temperature in the model drops to freezing then I say that the physics of the model is wrong. The stored energy of the O2 and N2 molecules in the earth’s atmosphere is 4000 times the stored energy of the CO2 molecules. The difference of the 33 degrees temperature of the troposphere between a non atmospheric earth and one with an atmosphere is not because of a trace gas which has only 1/4000 the heat capacity of the total of the main gases of O2 and N2. I now realize that the models dont even have the physics correct.

Percy Jackson
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
June 22, 2018 12:39 pm

O2 and N2 do not generate heat. Nor do they trap it. They store energy as kinetic energy which we perceive as heat. The energy is trapped by CO2 and other greenhouse gases and then converted to thermal energy by collisions.

If you don’t think the physics is correct then I look forward to seeing an analysis from you of the radiative equations that determine the energy trapped by the atmosphere showing where the basic quantum mechanics is wrong and what the right equations are.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Percy Jackson
June 22, 2018 1:09 pm

Set up a chamber outdoors composed of thermometers that measure temperature inside of the chamber walls. Construct this chamber (composed of the best insulation that money can buy), and suck everything out of the chamber so that it is near a vacuum. Seal the chamber. Then pump in air from the outside on a day which is at 15C the average earth temperature. Then Pump out all the CO2 and H2O out from that chamber. The temperature of the chamber will remain at 15 C as long as the outside air temperature remains at 15C. Dont forget that like a thermos bottle, it will take a long time for the inside temperature to change even when the outside temperature drastically changes. So this proves that O2 and N2 have heat capacity which we already knew. That heat capacity is 4000 times the heat capacity of CO2. If O2 and N2 didnt hold in heat then in a desert at nighttime with no H2O vapour in the air, there woudn’t be enough CO2 molecules (1 in 2500 in comparison to total molecules in atmosphere) to keep the temperature above freezing.

The mistake that all alarmist climate scientists make is that they are mixing up IR with heat. IR does not heat air. It heats objects which then heats the air by conduction. You can see that when you turn on an infrared heater in a room. The infrared heater heats the objects that you point it at. If the room is below freezing and you put a naked human in it and don’t point the heater at the human and instead point the infrared heater at the walls; the human will freeze to death before the walls can provide enough heat by conduction. Every gas absorbs heat . If that wasnt true then you couldnt heat a room. Since a room of air is composed of only 1/2500 no. of CO2 molecules compared to the N2 and O2 molecules the vast majority of the heat is coming from the O2 and N2 molecules. 4000 times more in fact.

Percy Jackson
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
June 22, 2018 9:23 pm

Again you are confusing two different things. O2 and N2 do not absorb infra-red radiation while C02, H20 and other greenhouse gases do. That is the basis of the greenhouse effect. That energy is then converted to thermal energy (i.e. random motion of molecules in the atmosphere) and is stored in the increased kinetic energy of all molecules. So more energy might be stored in O2 and N2 than CO2 but that doesn’t mean they can absorb infra-red radiation.

Bill Illis
Reply to  Percy Jackson
June 23, 2018 4:19 pm

Completely false Percy,

N2 and O2 absorb energy very efficiently through collisional energy exchange. Climate science thinks it has to be photon emission. But N2 and O2 absorb IR almost at the speed of light through collisional energy exchange.

The N2 and O2 molecules are absorbing every ounce of energy from the ground and from the walls basically as fast as the speed of light.

Collision rates at 7 billion times per second, means that it will transfer all the energy from the ground to the atmosphere up to 1 km even within a matter of seconds without any CO2 or H2O at all.

If the Sun rises in the morning, the N2 and O2 molecules will warm up to ground temperature within seconds. During the night, they will give that energy back to the ground and keep it warmer than it would have been otherwise.

If the atmosphere was N2 and O2 only, it would probably be the exact SAME temperature as it today.

If you are as smart as it seems, you will think your way through this and understand.

Reply to  Bill Illis
June 23, 2018 4:39 pm

The slight advantage that H2O and CO2 have over N2 and O2 in retarding IR escape is that they vibrate as well as collide. Also, H2O forms clouds, which shade during the day and act as a blanket at night, and is responsible for evaporative cooling.

Bill Illis
Reply to  Bill Illis
June 24, 2018 5:11 am

Look at it this way. Your gas furnace at home works by blowing air over a flame. That flame temperature is 2,000 C. That is not infra-red. That is the temperature at the surface of some stars.

So, your 98% N2 and O2 air is rapidly absorbing energy out of the flame. Enough to heat your whole home in a few minutes after being blown through the ducts.

Reply to  Alan Tomalty
June 22, 2018 5:03 am

“I have asked in another post whether any climate modeler ever ran a simulation where they had temporarily deleted the code that links CO2 to temperature increase.”

This is done all the time. CO2 is frequently removed from equations to determine it’s forcing impact. It’s how we know that CO2 is a primary forcing, and that without it the earth would be cooling slightly.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Alley
June 22, 2018 6:23 am

Yes. Start with models that have “CO2 forcing” built into them, then remove CO2 forcing, and presto, the models don’t work without the “CO2 forcing”. Genius.

Wiliam Haas
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
June 22, 2018 12:59 am

The stability of this type of simulation is very sensitive to the spatial and temporal sampling intervals that are used, Increasing the sampling interval of a marginally stable weather simulation results in a totally unstable “climate” simulation . The results that they have come up with may be more of a function of hard coding in CO2 based warming and the code they add to make the whole thing seem to be stable. The results are fantasy and have nothing to do with atmospheric physics, weather, or climate.

Reply to  Alan Tomalty
June 22, 2018 3:56 am

Is anyone willing to take a real hard look at why the CFD runs are ergodic? Guess what – instead of garbage-in garbage-out (the cop out explantion), it is because of Entropy in, Entropy out!!
This goes right back to Newtons pair-wise “gravity” where the 3-body problem goes ergodic. Nuts! Bertrand Russell’s systems analysis.
Scientist who recoil here are definitely the problem. the NSA should fund an investigation into Newton’s, Boltzmann’s, Russell’s hoaxes.

Paul Linsay
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
June 22, 2018 9:46 am

Here’s the take of someone who actually worked with Gavin Schmidt on climate models while a graduate student. It isn’t pretty.

Note the comment: “Similarly, some climate modelers study whether climate systems have multiple equilibria — different possible steady-states. If there are multiple equilibria then you can’t predict which equilibrium will occur and thus you can’t predict climate.”

Dave Miller
Reply to  Paul Linsay
June 22, 2018 5:14 pm

I seem to recall from my student days that a plug-flow multi-phase exothermic chemical reactor (the chimney you start your BBQ charcoal in) has three equilibrium states. Two stable and one unstable. Simple system, surprisingly complex behavior.

It’s just pure hubris for climate scientists to claim they know anything about even the SIGN (positive or negative) of the atmosphere’s overall insulation power response to a “poisonous” injection of “anthropogenic” “carbon”.

I believe that climate models boil down to “let’s calculate how much the “r-value” of the atmosphere increases, assuming it comes to some new “radiative equilibrium” (while we model that R-value as a feedback-multiplied monotonic function of C02 concentration)”. Talk about circular reasoning. (I first wrote Onanism…) Maybe I’m wrong?

It seems to me that construct of the atmosphere’s “r-value” is unreal, at least as a constant in time. I guess what they claim they are “measuring” is the partial derivative of earth’s equilibrium temperature with respect to atmospheric CO2 concentration.

Well, its never gonna achieve equilibrium. The atmosphere is an active system with complex behavior, not a simple insulator. The energy transfer through the atmosphere is just another time-varying dependent variable, in a system with no real independent variables. I question the whole construct of “forcing”. Energy transfer through the atmosphere is going to be a unique function of time, never in my lifetime subject to forecast. A model of a system this complex must be pretty close to as complex as the system itself to mean anything.


June 21, 2018 9:25 pm

There is no need for a probe that will take at least a year and only to be followed by another year of fruitless grandstanding by politicians.

Just cut all the funding to zero and make it clear that future funding will only be granted for projects that are based on real science.

Over 97% of “Climate Science” is not science in the generally accepted meaning of the word because it cannot be reproduced or tested against observations.

Joel O’Bryan
June 21, 2018 9:28 pm

Well of course it’s called “climate porn”. Not propaganda.
It’s mant to arouse.
Climate Porn is what goes by the name of climate science, today.

Wiliam Haas
June 21, 2018 9:36 pm

The reality is that based on the paleoclimate record and the work done with models, the climate change we have been experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control. There is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and plenty of scientific rational to support the idea that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero. The AGW conjecture is based on only partial science and is full of holes. For example, the AGW conjecture depends upon the existence of a radiant greenhouse effect in the Earth’s atmosphere caused by trace gases with LWIR absorption bands. Such a greenhouse effect has not been observed in a real greenhouse, in the Earth’s atmosphere or anywhere else in the solar system for that mater. The radiant greenhouse effect is science fiction hence the AGW conjecture is science fiction as well. Computer simulation of the weather is only reasonable good for about 10 days. The climate simulations are not as good as the weather simulations because of an increase in spatial and temporal sample sizes and inherent instabilities with the simulation process. The idea that adding CO2 to the atmosphere is hard coded into the simulations, begs the question and makes the climate simulations useless. Much of the work that supports the AGW conjecture is based on these inherently useless simulations.

Telling the public that the AGW conjecture is not based on only partial science is pure propaganda and should not be supported with the tax dollars. The federal government should not be funding explanations of global warming and the greenhouse effect that are just plane wrong.

Reply to  Wiliam Haas
June 21, 2018 9:43 pm

Excellent comment.

Reply to  Wiliam Haas
June 21, 2018 9:58 pm

Strongly agree that there is no evidence for climate sensitivity outside of climate models. The reason that they can’t decide on a value for the ECS is that it is based on a spurious correlation like a few other things in climate science. Please see:

Dave Miller
Reply to  Wiliam Haas
June 22, 2018 5:22 pm

WH, I just inadvertently echoed your sentiments in a reply to a post upthread. 😉

June 21, 2018 10:35 pm

Great news,

I hope the National Science Foundation gets canned, not only because of poor use of grants, but also for practicing non-science!



Reply to  Roger
June 21, 2018 10:53 pm

It says “this site can’t be reached”

John Endicott
Reply to  Chaamjamal
June 22, 2018 7:14 am

I believe there is a missing letter “C” in the link, try

Reply to  Chaamjamal
June 22, 2018 11:01 pm
Joel O’Bryan
June 21, 2018 11:52 pm

Well.. duh! !!

June 22, 2018 2:29 am

“to determine whether climate “education” grants are being used for political purposes.”

Surely not……?

Alan Tomalty
June 22, 2018 3:00 am

Please dont waste your time watching this useless video, but if you doubt my criticisms below then you will have to waste your time watching it to verify what I said.

Universities now allow their students to use university classrooms to broadcast so called lecture videos over the internet. I personally know this deranged climate alarmist called Paul Beckwith who calls himself a professor even though he doesnt have a PhD. He has put out 100’s of videos on climate alarmism .
One of his basic ones was How to calculate the earth’s natural temperature.

Okay the equation he uses is ( S pie r^2) *( 1-@) = emissivity * sigma * T^4 * (4 pie R^2)
He is assumimg the earth doesnt rotate and that total insolation = total output at TOA

S is the average solar insolation = 1470W/m^2

pie = 3.14

r is radius of earth
the above 2 variables will cancel out on each side

@ = total reflection of solar insolation = 30% or .3

He assumes emissivity = 1 for a blackbody

sigma = Stefan Boltzmann constant = 5.67 x 10^-8

T = temperature in K

Earth without an atmosphere
total insolation = ( S pie r^2) *( 1-@)
total output at TOA = emissivity * sigma * T^4 * (4 pie R^2)

So solving for T you get 259K

Criticisms :

1) He confuses the Boltzmann constant with the Stephan Boltzmann constant even though he does use the correct one.
2) He doesn’t bother to give his listeners the exact value of the Stephan Boltzmann constant

3) He miscalculates and gets 255 K instead of the correct answer 259 K. I dont think he actually calculated it He just took the figure everybody else quotes.

4) In his basic calculation he assumes that the earth has a blackbody emission of 1, but after he obtains his temp for the earth without an atmosphere he says that that difference between todays actual temp of 288 represents the effect of having a greenhouse. The only way that he can explain this is he says:
“Since the earth actually has greenhouse gases you have to redo the calculation and make the emissivity a little less than 1 for the IR being radiated outward When you do that of course the temperature result that you calculate will go up but if you actually do the calculation for the new emissivity you get .66. He doesnt go into details nor does he calculate it. He simply says that the emissivity had to change because of the greenhouse gases. That is ludicrous because why would the oceans and land change their emissivity factor which is a different constant depending on the surface of the material and what material it is. If he assumed an emissivity of 1 doing the 1st temperature calculation then just because you add an atmosphere the emissivity of the oceans or land wont change. That has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect even if you believe in the greenhouse effect.

Amazingly this guy has a MSc and a Bachelor Eng He is working on his PhD.

Mr Beckwith now has over 10000 subscribers to his youtube videos. On his website it says

“He is involved in the very early stages of developing an entrepreneurial startup venture based out of Northern Europe, using the latest in innovative climate change thinking to examine climate change solutions that can prevent catastrophic climate disruption. ”

As I said, I know this guy and he is intelligent but he is a prime example of a socialist who is against capitalism and who is so blinded by the global warming fiasco that it actually makes him dumber. I now believe that believing in a religion ( any religion) makes you dumber because it mixes up your logic. To think that he has actually gone back to school late in life while his wife supported him with her government job They have 3 kids grown up now. I don’t castigate him for going back to school but he is a prime example of the power of the internet. He gets to spread his anti capitalistic and anti CO2 message to thousands of misled followers. Imagine how many followers he will have in 5 years. Imagine how many there are like him.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
June 22, 2018 2:08 pm

I realized after i wrote this, that the reason that Beckwith didnt get the answer that his equations pointed to is he took out the 4 from the 4 pieR^2 on the left side of the equation. The 4 pieR^2 will cancel out on each side and then the correct answer is the 255 which Beckwith told his viewers because he didnt actually calculate it from the equation. He simply looked up the answer. So he got the correct anwser 255 because he simply looked it up. So he actually used the wrong equation by leaving out the no. 4 on the left hand side. So my 3rd criticism still holds, but for the different reason that I have just explained.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
June 22, 2018 2:30 pm

The other thing that I just realized is that you cannot use the Stefan Boltzman constant in any equation that does not assume a blackbody. So in my 4th criticism above, the discussion of emissivity is mute when it comes to gases because gases are not a blackbody. There is no correct emissivity equation when it comes to gases because you cannot use the Stefan Boltzman constant when talking about non black bodies. Everyone seems to make this same mistake. The Stefan Boltzman constant is only good for blackbody radiation.

June 22, 2018 3:16 am

Since Church and State are constitutionally separated (even if Bush, Pence seemed to ignore), a new Amendment : Separation of Climate and State. It would make Pruitt’s job easier.

But the Gov’t must drive frontier research, as a mission, actively ecouraging. NASA means national, NSF also. Problem is today with Bertrand Russell’s toxic dumbness, we need an Einstein to stand up for science against the Bohr’s, today. So the real objective is to get back to real science. Nothing like a crash program to do that – fusion for example, a new Manhattan Project. I think Pres. Trump recognises the value of such large scale missions – he has now more room to manover after Britain’s Russiagate flopped.

George Daddis
Reply to  bonbon
June 22, 2018 6:41 am

I’m not in any way “religious”, but I do know that there is nothing the the US constitution that SEPARATES government and religion. It simply prohibits the Federal government from establishing its OWN exclusive religion (such as the Church of England from which many colonists were escaping).
Espousing a “faith” by an individual was in fact being protected. Bush and Pence have every right to believe in the God of their choice; it was THAT right that was covered in the First Amendment.
Clearly many of those who wrote the document were God fearing folk.

Reply to  George Daddis
June 22, 2018 12:02 pm

And they rightly feared the carnage of the European 30+ years wars. Funding charities for foreign policy, motivating fundies for (Bush second term) votes, all of this is on thin ice. Sure Pence et al have a right, but messianic attitudes are bad for the deal.

Reply to  George Daddis
June 22, 2018 12:34 pm

This is the problem:Bush’s religious “conversion” : It’s Easier Than Thinking
In describing his personal faith, which was strengthened by this transformation, Bush said, “My faith frees me … frees me to make decisions that others might not like.”
He certainly made decisions that many did not like. Is it clear now what the framers were worried about?

Reply to  bonbon
June 22, 2018 3:25 pm

Fascinating, how you are convinced that any convictions that don’t jive with yours are dangerous.

Reply to  bonbon
June 22, 2018 3:24 pm

It really is interesting how some people actually believe that if a politician makes a religious statement, that politician is trying to create a government run church.

It’s freedom of religion, not freedom FROM religion.

June 22, 2018 3:58 am

About time. 50 years of Greenshirt dogma needs to be purged starting with “climate” Marxism.

June 22, 2018 4:55 am

Throw a snowball on the Senate floor, and you’re an expert! Why educate the public with literal taxpayer dimes when you can continue to prop up your state’s oil business because “It’s a snowball. And it’s just from outside here. So it’s very, very cold out. Very unseasonable.”

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Alley
June 22, 2018 6:32 am

Ooooh, a red herring, a straw man, and an ad hominem in one! Good job!

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
June 22, 2018 6:42 am

He’s getting better with practice.

Reply to  Alley
June 22, 2018 6:42 am

I’d take your whines more seriously, if you didn’t hype every warm spell and every big storm as proof of global warming.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Alley
June 22, 2018 7:52 am

“Throw a snowball on the Senate floor, and you’re an expert!”

Senator Inhofe is quite well informed about the CAGW speculation and “the Science”.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
June 22, 2018 9:18 am

Alley starts with the assumption that anyone who doesn’t agree with him is by definition “uniformed”.
Either that or in the pay of big oil.

June 22, 2018 5:04 am

Looks like they are using climategate to push their good ol’ free-market” agenda of von Mises, von Hayek, Friedman. Yet another hijack. These guys would have convulsions with FDR’s New Deal, RFC, Hamilton’s Credit Clause. The sheer lunacy of von Hayek : common good springs forth spontaneously, in an unknowable way from the friction of “trade”. The intention of the US Constitution is Hayek’s and Mises London School of Economics real target (using the “socialist” straw dog). This radical craziness would leave nuclear reactors to close waiting for a spontaneous magic market (or rather carpet) happen! We would be left in darkness waiting for light – and the only light being then day. Talk about nutty greenies!
Trump ordered a nuclear closure moratorium while the GOP comes up with a plan. Well Trump may have to spontaneously take action, not wait for these guys.

Reply to  bonbon
June 22, 2018 3:27 pm

The free market created all the wealth that you see around. Government only destroys wealth, it can’t create it.
Around the world there is an inverse relationship between the size of the government and the wealth of the population.

Once again, the socialist pushes the nonsense that absent government regulation the world would grind to a halt.

June 22, 2018 5:06 am

I would be in 97% agreement with the 90% cut provided the remaining 10% is used by the foundation’s inspector general to reveal misuse of the funds and make a timely report available to the public. Otherwise a 100% cut would be in order.

June 22, 2018 6:00 am

Thank you Senators

Coach Springer
June 22, 2018 6:46 am

Education or propaganda? I do have a problem with calling it education when what you do is tell people what you think It’s not science – and it’s not education either.

Tom Abbott
June 22, 2018 6:56 am

Now we have to figure out the politics of the NSF Inspector General. Deep-State? Or not Deep-State? An Obama minion? Or not an Obama minion?

Chris D.
June 22, 2018 7:20 am

After I saw the CBS story linked by Richard Keen, I had to check a local weather caster’s blog. Sure enough, I was appalled to learn that she’s another one spewing the Climate Central junk:

This campaign seems to be fairly successful. I’m glad to see the funding is being challenged.

June 22, 2018 7:36 am

Bingo!!! I’ve been calling for that since Trump got elected.

Congress Should Investigate Green Companies for Defrauding the Public

Congress Should Investigate the EPA

Congress Should Investigate RSS Data “Adjustments”

Congress Should Investigate the Peer Review and Publication Process

Congress Should Investigate the Claim of Scientific Consensus

Congress Must Investigate Climate Metrics “Adjustments”

Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick Rules out CO2 as Cause of Global Warming

And the list goes on and on and on and on. Transparency is what is needed to end all this corruption.

June 22, 2018 9:40 am

If you haven’t already, then read this letter:

Pay attention to the titles of those grants mentioned, and then tell me that they are not politically, but rather scientifically, driven. Be honest with yourself, now.

Reply to  Robert Kernodle
June 22, 2018 10:14 am

As my comment above highlights, this is just the tip of the iceberg. Once they stick their nose under that tent, the whole house of cards will come down.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  CO2isLife
June 22, 2018 10:46 am

And that will be a whole ‘nother ball of wax.

J Mac
June 22, 2018 10:28 am

It’s about damn time, don’t you think? The latest ‘Ship Of Fools’ was funded in ‘major part’ by the NSF!

June 22, 2018 1:54 pm

Meteorologists ignore CO2 in weatherforecasting, so what do they know about global warming?

June 22, 2018 2:59 pm

Even by NOAA’s stilted accounting, there’s scarcely been any significant warming trend in Texas, Oklahoma, and Kentucky since record keeping began. Quite properly, these senators are asserting the historical experience of their constituents in questioning the palpable tendentiousness of NSF “climate change” grants.

June 23, 2018 11:31 am

Wow….seems like the Reynolds Company could make a fortune on the tin foil for all these hats.

June 23, 2018 1:44 pm

I used to believe that Repubs have had power in the past, before the Trump era. Real power. Local and federal.

Climatism was already obvious back then; not feminist glaciology bad, but still, not pretty.

So, what happened?

June 23, 2018 5:40 pm

Congress needs to investigate Mike’s Nature Trick to “Hide the Decline.”

Michael Mann Used Well Known Deceitful Statistics to Create the Hockey Stick

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights