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.
…
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.
“to determine whether climate “education” grants are being used for political purposes.”
Surely not……?
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.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5gfJ878VIs
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-@ur momisugly) = 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
@ur momisugly = 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-@ur momisugly)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Fascinating, how you are convinced that any convictions that don’t jive with yours are dangerous.
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.
About time. 50 years of Greenshirt dogma needs to be purged starting with “climate” Marxism.
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.”
Ooooh, a red herring, a straw man, and an ad hominem in one! Good job!
He’s getting better with practice.
I’d take your whines more seriously, if you didn’t hype every warm spell and every big storm as proof of global warming.
“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”.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Thank you Senators
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.
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?
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: http://breedingextreme.blogspot.com
This campaign seems to be fairly successful. I’m glad to see the funding is being challenged.
Bingo!!! I’ve been calling for that since Trump got elected.
Congress Should Investigate Green Companies for Defrauding the Public
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/05/08/congress-should-investigate-green-companies-for-defrauding-the-public/
Congress Should Investigate the EPA
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/07/05/congress-should-investigate-the-epa/
Congress Should Investigate RSS Data “Adjustments”
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/07/05/congress-should-investigate-rss-data-adjustments/
Congress Should Investigate the Peer Review and Publication Process
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/05/08/congress-should-investigate-the-peer-review-and-publication-process/
Congress Should Investigate the Claim of Scientific Consensus
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/04/24/congress-should-investigate-the-claim-of-scientific-consensus/
Congress Must Investigate Climate Metrics “Adjustments”
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/05/21/congress-must-investigate-climate-metrics-adjustments/
Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick Rules out CO2 as Cause of Global Warming
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/06/19/michael-manns-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.
If you haven’t already, then read this letter:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/20180620_NSF.pdf
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.
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.
And that will be a whole ‘nother ball of wax.
It’s about damn time, don’t you think? The latest ‘Ship Of Fools’ was funded in ‘major part’ by the NSF!
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/06/21/student-propaganda-cruise-to-the-arctic-to-be-carried-by-webcast/
Meteorologists ignore CO2 in weatherforecasting, so what do they know about global warming?
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.
Wow….seems like the Reynolds Company could make a fortune on the tin foil for all these hats.
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?
Congress needs to investigate Mike’s Nature Trick to “Hide the Decline.”
Michael Mann Used Well Known Deceitful Statistics to Create the Hockey Stick
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/06/24/michael-mann-used-well-known-deceitful-statistics-to-create-the-hockey-stick/