Where Did The Money Go?

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

Here’s what we, the US taxpayers, have spent on climate since 1993 … can anyone tell me what we bought that is worth ~ $180 BILLION dollars?

Next week we’ll be spending another hundred and forty megabucks or so on this nonsense … where is it going, and what are we getting for our hard-earned taxes?

The world wonders …

w.

Advertisements

196 thoughts on “Where Did The Money Go?

    • It generated a lot of corporate welfare, political payoffs and employment for some scientists, engineers, technicians and administrators that might have skills best utilized elsewhere. Depending on perspective, not entirely wasted.

        • Or to use the IPCC standard ”most likely” 95% chance, which ofcourse is 5% higher than likely at 90% certain.

          So global temperature will most likely increase by more than 2c is another way of stating its 1/19 chance or 95% certain.

          They had a help list of terminology translated into error margin or certainty, ”’very likely”’ was the one that was fearsome.

          That was precision engineering error margin that.

    • It’s not billions wasted, globally it’s trillions, probably by now ten of trillions – Germany alone has squandered $800 billion just on worthless wind power. Then there are all the other countries, and all the other energy nonsense, such as grid-solar power, biofuels, etc. etc.

      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12/02/dr-willie-soon-versus-the-climate-apocalypse/#comment-2543040

      I published the following article in E&E in early 2005, in defence of legitimate climate scientists.

      We knew that the Mann hockey stick (MBH98 etc.) was false when it was published, because it contradicted the historical climate record, eliminating both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, in order to bolster global warming alarmism and promote costly, ineffective and destructive green energy schemes.

      Environmental harm from these green energy schemes included accelerated draining of the vital Ogalalla Aquifer for corn ethanol production in the USA and clear-cutting of the rainforests in South America and Southeast Asia to grow biofuels. These actions continue to cause huge environmental damage.

      Energy costs have been sharply increased, vital electrical grids have been destabilized, and Excess Winter Deaths have increased.

      Based on the evidence, including the Mann hokey stick and the Climategate emails, global warming and green energy are the greatest scams, in dollar terms, in the history of humanity. Many trillions of dollars of scarce global resources have been squandered on global warming/green energy falsehoods.

      A fraction of these wasted trillions could have put safe water and sanitation systems into every village on Earth, and run them forever. About two million kids below the age of five die from contaminated water every year – over sixty million dead kids from bad water alone since the advent of global warming alarmism.

      The remaining squandered funds, properly deployed, could have gone a long way to ending malaria and world hunger.

      Told you so, years ago.

      Regards, Allan

      DRIVE-BY SHOOTINGS IN KYOTOVILLE
      The global warming debate heats up
      Allan M.R. MacRae, P.Eng.

      • Allan,

        ” it contradicted the historical climate record, eliminating both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age”

        What historical climate record? The one from Central England? How do you know that represents the record from the whole northern hemisphere, or that it is accurate?

      • Allan,

        So, are you saying that health, food and water security are good goals? Do you know that is one of the “Results Areas” of the Green Climate Fund? How about sustainable communities and livelihoods, is that a good thing? Or the UN goal of Zero Hunger? Just one of the scores of projects is aimed at improving the lives of 10 million people. Waste of money?

        Accountability is also an important part of the Fund, as is cooperative funding. The funds are through both grants and secured loans.

        While the programs have “climate” in the name, they could just as well be called “weather.” The goals are to build resilience, open markets, provide dependable electricity, assist in converting to sustainable land use, prevent disaster… These seem like pretty good goals to me.

        But conservatives in general don’t want to be a part of it. Then they complain that “leftist greenies” don’t want to help people; some say they are committing genocide.

        I don’t get it.

        • Kristi wrote: “I don’t get it.” Kristi, you are correct.

          Many people including myself have written you Kristi, providing ample evidence that:
          1) The is no catastrophic global warming crisis – it is a false crisis.
          2) There is no more extreme weather happening now than before – also a false crisis.
          3) Green energy is not green and produces little useful (dispatchable) energy.

          You have shown no ability to even examine these points, let alone understand them. I suggest that is your deliberate strategy.

          Why should I spend any more time discussing this subject with you?

          • Allan,

            That is completely irrelevant to my comment.

            Perhaps to your mind I haven’t shown ability to address those issues because it’s a waste of my time discussing them with you, so I haven’t.

          • Oh, come now, Willis. Do I need to discuss these same issues with everyone, at any time, even if they are irrelevant to the post and to my comment, without answering the questions I asked of him? And even if that person insults me?

            If anyone had truly shown ample evidence for the claims Allan makes, I would believe them. I have no idea what “ample evidence” he’s talking about (I don’t keep track of these things; it’s possible I didn’t even see it, I don’t know), but I haven’t been convinced yet. Take just the last claim, that “green” energy produced little useful energy…I subscribe to a solar farm, and that’s where my electricity comes from (in conjunction with nuclear). My parents have solar panels on their roof. Many people in the developing world get their electricity from solar microgrids or privately-owned panels, rather than wait.

            Just for example, one small start-up provides electricity to 1/4 million people in the developing world who would not otherwise have it; their solar has generated 4 Gwhrs. (www.bboxx.co.uk/customers/) This may be little energy in comparison to other sources, but when the alternative is buying diesel, generators, batteries and kerosene (one common source of poor indoor air quality) or waiting years to be connected to a grid, it makes sense for some people. There are reasons why in countries like Kenya a quarter of residents still have no dependable source of electricity, and these reasons aren’t going to go away overnight.

            1) I never describe AGW as “catastrophic” or a “crisis,” so I don’t feel a need to address it.

            2) How does Allan define “extreme weather”? Why is it only extremes that are important? For much of the world, the data are not adequate to tell much about extremes. Besides that, the extremes are often predicted and observed to be regional, so if you are taking a global average, the variation may mask such extremes. And even if a pattern isn’t obvious now doesn’t mean that it isn’t there, since it could be hidden statistically by noise; it may take more time before such patterns are identifiable. In many cases it is just as false to say with certainty that there has been no more extreme weather than to be certain that there has. (CONUS has seen an increase in extreme (one day) precipitation events.)

            My stance is that there is ample evidence of climate change, and that there are many reasons for concern. I don’t, however, believe that there is imminent threat of catastrophe. I believe the rate of change is important, and it’s worthwhile to try to slow the rate in a way that doesn’t threaten economies or human health. There are multiple ways of doing this, some of which have benefits unrelated to climate. I believe that people all over the world should be willing to change their habits and their purchasing decisions in ways that increase efficiency, reduce waste, and acknowledge the importance of appropriate land management in the long-term. I also believe that those in wealthy, high-consumption countries with a history of high per capita CO2 emissions have a responsibility to slow their emissions and help those in the developing world to become resilient to extremes of weather that threaten their livelihood and health. While it may not yet be certain that such weather is the effect of climate change, it is likely that climate change will lead to problems, and it is better than we help people prevent disastrous effects before they happen than wait until they do and see people suffer.

            No ability to examine Allan’s points? Well, think what you want. There are enough interesting discussions around that I don’t feel compelled to address every one of them, even if it means people insult me for my choices.

          • kristi silber December 21, 2018 at 1:25 pm

            Oh, come now, Willis. Do I need to discuss these same issues with everyone, at any time, even if they are irrelevant to the post and to my comment, without answering the questions I asked of him? And even if that person insults me?

            kristi, you don’t NEED to do a damn thing.

            I was just pointing out that your style and substance are immensely off-putting. It’s why I and others often just skip over your comments. You often presume to know what you are talking about when it is very evident that you have no idea what’s going on. Your posts are generally endlessly long-winded, boring, and wide of the point. Your style is to refuse to even consider any opposing evidence, or to do any homework, even when pointed to it by people who are experts in some subject.

            As a result, you’ve canceled your own vote on my planet. I almost never bother to even read your comments, much less answer them. I see your name at the top of a comment, I move on. I’m interested in knowledgeable discussions with people who actually know something.

            I am honestly sorry to be so blunt, but in the past, you’ve proven beyond a doubt that you rarely get the point even when someone hits you over the head with a clue-by-four. My advice? Listen more, opine less, read more, argue less …

            You are now free to post your usual long screed, this time (surprise!) telling me I’m totally wrong and that only you have the inside track on the truth …

            w.

          • Willis,

            I know I can be off-putting. Bad habit. But from my standpoint, so can many others around here, and I react to that. I’m human, after all.

            Yes, I write long posts. Another bad habit. Sometimes I stray off-topic, sometimes I’m trying to make a good, thorough argument, addressing multiple points Sometimes I figure I should clarify my general stance because so many people make false assumptions about me. Maybe I should write a post and get it over with, have that to refer to.

            I know I make mistakes. I know I’m ignorant about many things. I try to inform myself, but it’s a steep learning curve. It’s possible I say things that sound wrong to you, but that’s just because we disagree and I have different evidence, not just because I’m dumb or misinformed. You could always ask me to provide links if there are specific things you think I’m wrong about. I don’t mind at all admitting I’m wrong if there’s good, specific evidence, but vague assertions that I don’t know what I’m talking about aren’t valuable.

            You don’t need to respond to me, especially if it’s just to say it’s not worth responding to me.

  1. Much has been going to the virtue signalers as tax incentives. More has been going to failed ventures like Solyndra. Some has even been funneled through the GCF and the World Bank which provides little to no accountability of where it goes and what it’s spent on. Most of what we know about has no climate impact, so there’s no reason not to believe that this is the case for the rest of it.

    • co2isnotevil,

      How do you mean the GCF provides little to no accountability? In what way? Is there something specific about the accreditation process you object to? Or the reporting? Just curious.

      • kristi,

        The GCF is basically laundering money through the World Bank and those who contribute to the GCF have absolutely no say in where the money goes or what it’s spent on. The claim is that the money goes to address climate change, but they have not redistributed one dime to a single program that would do this. Instead, they push green garbage that does more harm than good for those countries they claim to be helping.

        The GCF is nothing more than a welfare program for failing countries that uses the false fear of climate change from CO2 to extort money from Western Democracies. We are successful not because we burned fossil fuels, but because we have embraced freedom that allowed us to succeed. Giving failed countries windmills and batteries will do nothing to help them succeed and only hold them back.

        • co2isnotevil did not answer my questions.

          I see things very differently based on the GCF website, which I have no reason to think is lying.

          I thought providing people with electricity was a good thing!

          Freedom comes with empowerment. Empowerment comes with education and information, opportunities for which are vastly expanded when people have internet connection. That requires electricity. A microgrid can power a few computers, communally used. I fail to see how this is holding anyone back.

          • kristi,
            One problem is that welfare creates dependency, not self sufficiency. Another is the false pretenses behind the GCF and the damage this is doing to science. If you want to give them electricity, they need reliable base load power before they can have the luxury of virtue signaling with ‘green’ power. Besides, there are other UN programs, foreign aid from Western democracies and many private charities that already provide massive amounts of assistance to the developing world.

            You need to open your eyes and look past the propaganda on the GCF web site. What’s driving them is satisfying the greed and envy of the third world. These ends then justify the means of replacing the scientific method with conformance to a self serving ‘consensus’ that couldn’t be more wrong if it tried.

          • co2isnotevil,

            Have you even looked at the GCF website? In what way are those projects “welfare”? In many/most cases the gov’ts of the nations involved are contributing, too. In what respect is the site “propaganda”?

            Envy and greed??? These people just want to live healthy lives, with the opportunity to get out of poverty!

            The point of assisting with renewables is that there is no “base load.” People have to wait years to be connected to the grid. You seem to have little concept of the situation in the developing world.

            But I’m wasting my time, apparently.

          • kritsi,

            You’re obviously not a scientist, otherwise truthful science would matter more then ‘feel good’ virtue signaling based on demonstrably false science.

            I get that the left is driven by hate, fear and hyperbolic rhetoric (TDS is a prime example), but these emotional arguments must never be allowed to influence science which must be driven by purely objective logic and analysis. The evidence is clear that the kinds of emotionally driven policies favored by the left and that lack a logical foundation are a sure path to political failure and we have unfortunately allowed this to infect science.

            Don’t be confused by evil wrapped in purported benevolence. It’s still evil underneath it all.

  2. Where did the money go? Straight down the commode, Willis, straight down the commode, in a counterclockwise swirling vortex.

  3. Next week we’ll be spending another hundred and forty megabucks or so on this nonsense … where is it going, and what are we getting for our hard-earned taxes?

    Well paid Climate Scientists and Universities studying the poorly model induced effect of minutely increasing greenhouse gasses on the estimated global temperature anomaly.

  4. Willis you said

    “Next week we’ll be spending another hundred and forty megabucks”

    Is this just the average spending per week or is it on something special?

      • Just to put this in perspective, we could compare it to military spending, which was about $1.6 billion per day average between 2000 and 2017. In 2013 it was over $2000 per capita. In 2012 we had a defense budget higher than the next 10 highest defense budgets combined. But since we haven’t been attacked in an act of war on our soil in all that time, I guess it’s working, even if it didn’t protect us from 9/11.

        • Just to put this in perspective, we could compare it to military spending, which was about $1.6 billion per day average between 2000 and 2017.

          Why would comparing these expenditures to military spending put them in perspective? In other words, what perspective is gained or loss by the comparative analysis and why?

          • sycomputing,

            Oh, I don’t know. Forget I said anything.

            I could argue that we are all part of one nation, and some people think some expenditures are worthwhile, and others think other expenditures are worthwhile, and we all have to try to get along unless we want to just hate each other more and eventually have a civil war. Personally, I think all this hate is not doing anyone or the nation any good, but that is tangential to the expenditures. So never mind.

          • I could argue that we are all part of one nation, and some people think some expenditures are worthwhile, and others think other expenditures are worthwhile . . .

            You could, but of course you wouldn’t, because that argument fails doesn’t it? Since military spending exists in a class all by itself and cannot be compared to other types of spending, it sheds no light or perspective whatsoever on any other spending. If this is true, it only follows that other types of spending are therefore “non-comparative” to military spending as well. Rather, taxpayer expenditures should be evaluated on their own merit and worth to the nation, not as a comparative exercise to military spending.

            Personally, I think all this hate is not doing anyone or the nation any good, but that is tangential to the expenditures. So never mind.

            Now you’re thinking, because you’re right that the hate “doing” the nation hasn’t anything to do with the expenditures in question. Rather, that hate seems to be derived of assumptions (about which someone here had heavy criticism, did they not?) from individual belief systems regarding the worth of certain kinds of spending over others.

            Or would you argue that the hate you’re referencing is the product of rational thought?

          • sycomputing,

            We live in a democracy. We shouldn’t allow hate to stem from disagreement, but acknowledge that our differences are a GOOD because they lead to balance; any particular viewpoint could lead to societal damage if power resided only with one “side,” and ideology were taken to extremes. Democracy must lead to cooperation and compromise.

          • We live in a democracy. We shouldn’t allow hate to stem from disagreement but acknowledge that our differences are a GOOD because they lead to balance . . .

            Do you really expect me to acknowledge that your faith in AGW is a good thing when I don’t believe that for one second??? Why in the world would you want me to lie to you like that? The purposeful telling of lies is immoral behavior, therefore, I refuse to lie to you.

            No one wants “balance” in science. People want their way because they believe their way is the correct way. If one doesn’t believe they’re right when they make a scientific argument then get out of the way of those who do until you can make a decision one way or the other. Otherwise, as far as I’m concerned you’re just a fence-sitting time waster. I don’t care what you think; I care what you can prove. That’s the nature of good evidence and good evidence used to be a fundamental pillar of Science.

            Democracy must lead to cooperation and compromise.

            Nonsense. See my objection above. Look around you. Please consider allowing your own experience and the lessons of history to confirm to you that democracy in and of itself leads to nothing of the sort, rather, only rational human beings are able to cooperate and compromise; democracy or no.

            If anything, democracy leads to rampaging Stupid because it presupposes the freedom to be so. I prefer the freedom to be a moron, don’t misunderstand, but you don’t have the moral authority to require me to cooperate and compromise with morons.

          • sycomputing,

            When I was talking about democracy, I wasn’t talking about science, I was talking about expenditures. When I talked about balance, I meant political balance between right and left. Sorry I wasn’t clear.

            When each side considers the other to be full of morons, that blocks discussion and understanding. When each side believes the other’s ideology is immoral, that demonstrates a lack of understanding that different people simply have different morals and values, because people are people. There’s evidence based partly on twin studies that values are to some extent genetically determined. My best friend is a staunch conservative, and I’ve done quite a bit of reading about this. My views have changed quite dramatically in the last decade as I’ve come to understand the bases of conservative values better, and I respect them more. I wish other liberals could do so.

            No, I don’t have the authority to require you to cooperate and compromise. It has to be voluntary. But without doing so we could end up moving toward authoritarianism/totalitarianism or civil war. (This is way off-topic. I’m not talking about AGW or climate science.)

          • Sorry I wasn’t clear.

            You were clear enough, but you were going way OT, so I thought I’d reign you in if I could, since I found the discussion interesting and therefore was hoping to avoid the rebuke of MOD. 🙂

            There’s evidence based partly on twin studies that values are to some extent genetically determined. My best friend is a staunch conservative, and I’ve done quite a bit of reading about this.

            Twin studies, eh? Well “twin studies” explains it all doesn’t it?

            Sometimes it’s funny when science tries to delve into the realm of philosophy and religion wouldn’t you agree? I mean, think about the contradictions that are derivable from what you’ve said above! E.g., what explains the oft noted truism of a rabid liberalism in one’s youth versus the later conservatism born from wisdom and life experience? True, such isn’t always the case, but just one example contradicts the theory doesn’t it? After all, what happened? Did that set of individual’s genetic make-up suddenly, for no other reason than it did, just turn off the liberal gene and turn on the conservative gene? If so, why? When does the Communist gene get turned on, only when one lives around the Asian continent? Perhaps one day I should magically become a goat!

            That’s the hilarious part, i.e., the stupidity of attempting to apply a DNA based scientific determinism to behavior. And note that you must if you apply it to values. Values determine how we as individuals make choices and choices determine how we will behave, therefore, if values are determined by DNA then so is behavior. But this notion isn’t new and neither is it always funny. In a dark period of American history, such a theory as you propose was used to enslave Africans in the U.S.

            And here it rears it’s stupid head in the modern day: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Philippe_Rushton#Application_of_r/K_selection_theory_to_race

            And here’s the leftists version of the same now:
            https://www.thecollegefix.com/texas-university-offers-course-white-privilege/

            My views have changed quite dramatically in the last decade as I’ve come to understand the bases of conservative values better, and I respect them more.

            Why would you respect conservative values given you’ve argued there’s nothing but DNA behind them? What is there to respect in such a case? I suspect you don’t understand the basis of conservative values at all if you believe as you do. Rather, it makes much more sense to believe you probably pity your friend because “she just can’t help it,” and you’re really just ever so grateful to the gods that the conservative gene didn’t get turned on when you were formed in the womb . . .

            *Whew!!*

            No, I don’t have the authority to require you to cooperate and compromise. It has to be voluntary.

            You left out the most important operative word I used in my phrase, i.e., “moral authority.” The fact that you lack the authority of the state (at present) is a given, hence, I’m not talking about the authority of the state. I mean specifically, “moral authority.” I have no moral obligation to compromise or cooperate with the demonstrably stupid and harmful against that which is demonstrably wise and beneficial. Moreover, anyone who would voluntary compromise or cooperate with the demonstrably stupid and harmful simply for the sake of doing so is surely worthy of many lashes with the rod.

            But the rest of the problem with your argument is under your assumptions I don’t have the ability to voluntarily cooperate at all. How can I if my values are directly determined by DNA? It just wouldn’t be possible. There’s truly no fixing stupid if values are deterministic of DNA rather than driven by whatever belief system one holds at the time. Indeed, under such a theory as yours we’re all doomed to our respective outcomes.

            I’m so very sorry that you’re overall world view is wrapped and bound by the foolish whims and wiles of whatever is the consensus science of the day. How you must exist in a permanent state of limbo, without any hope of a strong foundation for belief! Who knows, tomorrow “science” could change its mind and by necessity, yours.

            But then again, that couldn’t be true either, since you haven’t the ability to make decisions on your own, rather your DNA does that for you . . . or so you seem to argue.

            Merry Christmas!

            🙂

  5. Mmmm, … the government link is NOT working. I tried it three times. Checked, re-checked, and checked again. Went to Google search to confirm not working. Yep, NOT working.

  6. Where do we get the numbers that were forced out of energy and utility rate payers and pretty much every step of the way that had to pass on their costs to the end consumer?

    • AWG.

      You mean you’re paying for your electricity?

      I subscribe to a solar farm. I pay them. I also get bills from my regular electric company which are based on my electricity consumption (weird system, really). I have no reason to believe that any cost from the solar is passed on to Xcel since I have a credit on that bill. That’s how it works in MN; I don’t know how it works elsewhere.

  7. Much of that money has been used to traumatize our children, divide well meaning folks into camps that distrust each other and can’t discuss the causes of the distrust, and empower political operatives. What it has not been used for is delivering needed help to needy folks or dispelling extreme weather events.

    • DMA,

      Wow, that would be something if we could dispel weather events!

      Delivering needed help to needy folks was the focus of the Green Climate Fund, and that was nixed by conservatives.

      It doesn’t take government money to sow distrust. That’s accomplished nicely by the media, the president, and sites like this one, for instance. OH, I guess the president is paid by the government – but not by climate change money.

  8. According to the “Gangs of NY” politicos we got an “abundance of caution” on climate and several miles of high speed rail construction work for the CA unions. Oh, and we got a toxic waste site at SoloPower in Oregon and a lot of dead birds at Google’s Ivanpah solar tower project. But they will need 100x more money to fund the “Gangs of NY” subway system needs and airport upgrades and more miles of high speed union make work in CA.

  9. Yeah, good question, where is it going? It’s certainly not all going to climate change!

    “According to Office of Management and Budget reports, federal climate change funding was $13.2 billion across 19 agencies in 2017. In the 6 agencies we reviewed, we found that 94% of their reported climate change funding went to programs that touch on, but aren’t dedicated to climate change, such as nuclear energy research.”

    “Based on its review of the budget justifications of six agencies representing 89 percent of OMB-reported funding, GAO identified few programs (18 of 533) whose primary purpose is to address climate change. The remaining programs were multi-purpose—the budget justifications included other program goals in addition to addressing climate change. The 18 programs represented about 6 percent of these agencies’ reported climate change funding for fiscal year 2017.”

    Looks to me like over half a billion of year went to foreign aid. 2-2.5 b to science, and the rest to technology. Over 26 b was part of the Recovery Act.

    So, from the looks of it, the figures Willis found are pretty misleading – and that’s from the same site he cites.

    • Actually, kristi, the way you state it makes it even more apparent that it was uselessly frittered away than the way Willis asked the question in the first place. So thanks for that.

      • The question being posed is what did you get for billions of dollars annually, which totals many US trillions of dollars over time.

        • The answer is that we got a fabricated justification to contribute an even greater amount in the future.

          That is all we got, and that is a bad thing.

        • LdB,

          Over how long a time? And how do you know how much is spent? Maybe you can see the future, but I can’t, so perhaps you’ll share your insight.

          • What do I care I am not a US tax payer.

            However for those who are US tax payers they paid $11.6Billion last year so is anyone happy with what they got for it? What exactly did you get for it?

          • Sycomputing,

            My point was that people were making assumptions that it was all wasted, without taking the time to investigate.

            It’s assumptions that I find myself constantly fighting. Skeptics – true skeptics – should be the last people to make assumptions.

          • My point was that people were making assumptions that it was all wasted, without taking the time to investigate.

            I gotcha Kristi, and I’m with you on the dangers of presuppositions, however, don’t you also agree that in making your point you’ve confirmed the author’s argument in this case?

            It’s assumptions that I find myself constantly fighting. Skeptics – true skeptics – should be the last people to make assumptions.

            Agreed, depending on the nature of the assumption(s) made. E.g., if one is skeptical without evidence regarding a certain scientific claim, I would think that would be an assumption that fits the definition of just what skeptics should do.

          • sycomputing,

            I have no problem with people being skeptical about scientific claims. It’s when they dismiss a claim without looking at a wide array of evidence that I have a problem. However, it’s also the case that it’s often difficult for laymen to evaluate the scientific evidence well, and instead rely on a rehashing of evidence in terms that are more understandable. If one then relies on or trusts rehashing from particular sources, this can easily lead to confirmation bias.

            This is where scientific consensus can play a role in the public’s and policy makers’ decisions. It is not the same as blindly following the mass, it is trusting in the expertise of others. When that trust is constantly attacked, the result can be an inability to make any informed decisions at all. In this case, it may be better to make no decisions, but simply to admit ignorance.

            I for the most part trust the scientific community as a whole. I try to keep informed about the uncertainties and debates within that community to avoid making decisions about some aspects of AGW. I am skeptical of the IPCC’s quantitative predictions, for instance, because I know there is much in them that is uncertain, yet I believe that AGW is happening based both on the observational evidence and the consensus.

          • It’s when they dismiss a claim without looking at a wide array of evidence that I have a problem.

            Good! Then it’s clear we can agree on my premise above. Since neither of us can describe (i.e., provide any evidence, much less a “wide array” of it) where the expenditures that are the subject of this particular author’s article are being disbursed, the author’s overall contention seems to be confirmed.

            As to the rest, i.e., your belief that AGW is valid, well, as a proponent of the Christian religion, I understand very well how belief by faith works, however, I’m not sure where belief by faith applies from anything I’ve said here. On the contrary, I would argue faith should never be applied in matters of science, since such a thing is both anathema to science and the “doing” of proper science, in all cases of which I can think.

            Merry Christmas to you and yours!

            🙂

          • sycomputing,

            Do you think belief is the same as faith??? If so, I most strenuously disagree. I can believe it’s below freezing outside, but it’s not a matter of faith, since I know I can access hard evidence and easily change my belief.

            “Since neither of us can describe (i.e., provide any evidence, much less a “wide array” of it) where the expenditures that are the subject of this particular author’s article are being disbursed, the author’s overall contention seems to be confirmed. ”

            Not so. Even the link to the source of his data provides much more evidence about the expenditures than the author provided, and that is certainly not the only source of evidence. There are especially good descriptions of where the science expenditures were used, which I hadn’t seen when I copied the excerpts included in other comments.

          • I can believe it’s below freezing outside, but it’s not a matter of faith, since I know I can access hard evidence and easily change my belief.

            If you believe it’s freezing outside before you confirm it with hard evidence, then it necessarily follows that your belief is by faith. So yes, belief most certainly is a matter of faith depending on the available evidence for your belief and whether or not you choose to avail yourself of it.

            This goes to my point regarding AGW. Since you haven’t any good, hard evidence for AGW yet, your belief that AGW is true is by faith alone.

            There are especially good descriptions of where the science expenditures were used, which I hadn’t seen . . .

            Well if it has become the case that good and true evidence is available and you’ve discovered it, then your original belief by faith has now become belief by evidence. Before this time, however, your belief was just as much a matter of faith as those who believed the opposite.

            Good for you to do the research. Confirmation is key to solid beliefs, where such confirmation can be had anyway.

    • Unfortunately I’m unable to paste a PDF entitled ” OPEN THE BOOKS ON THE EPA”.
      Perhaps someone else can post this eye opening expose. EPA issued contracts in excess of $20 billion from 2000-2014.

    • So, from the looks of it, the taxpayers produced something of value that someone willingly paid for in competitive markets, where the buyers have choices on what they spend their money on.
      And the government took a substantial portion of the money made by those taxpayers and produced nothing of value with it.
      If it had value, someone would be willing to pay for it, and the revenue from sales would generate at least as much as it cost to produce it.
      There is no way to square that circle. The money was wasted, and the taxpayers got propaganda and models that don’t work for their money. Another government “investment”.

    • Oh, only 26 billion squandered in the Porkuluous Bill? I thought Obama had more green donors than that to reward.

    • “the budget justifications included other program goals in addition to addressing climate change.”

      So, in other words, the government agencies are doing the same thing research scientists are doing: Including “climate change” in their program or study in order to cash in on the human-caused CAGW climate change scam.

      If you include “climate change” in your presentaton, you are much more likely to get funded. These people aren’t dummies when it comes to getting the money.

      • Tom Abbott,

        “If you include “climate change” in your presentaton, you are much more likely to get funded. These people aren’t dummies when it comes to getting the money.”

        Well, you could assume that, or you could say maybe it’s a product of the way the budget is analyzed. Or you could say, “I don’t really know why it’s like this. Maybe I should look into it more closely.” Seem to me that’s what a skeptic (a true, questioning skeptic) would do.

    • GAO identified few programs (18 of 533) whose primary purpose is to address climate change. The remaining programs were multi-purpose—the budget justifications included other program goals in addition to addressing climate change. The 18 programs represented about 6 percent of these agencies’ reported climate change funding for fiscal year 2017.

      So Willis’s scary number is made up of any expenditure, whether it’s primary function is on agriculture, defence, transport, foreign aid or whatever that has a ‘climate’ or ‘climate change’ dimension in its rationale. By definition, climate is pretty pervasive. It includes research into energy efficiency and alternative energy sources, including the US nuclear fusion research program.

      So Willis’s headline ‘climate’ number is 1600% inflated compared to the expenditure exclusively directed towards climate change. Which is interesting.

      It’s still a large number in absolute, if not relative terms, but the largest element is for science and technology and that includes the satellite programs, which again, do not come cheap, but do provide data for Drs Spencer and Christy to play around with 😉

      • Thanks, Philip. It is not MY number. It is the number of the General Accounting Office. If it is scary, and in my world it is, that has nothing to do with me.

        And it is not MY “headline ‘climate’ number”, nor is it “1600% inflated”. It is a simple fact reported by the GAO, and all of your accusations that somehow I have invented the number or that I have inflated it or made it scary are nonsense.

        My question remains. We are spending a quarter of a billion dollars PER WEEK on climate.

        Are we getting our money’s worth?

        w.

    • Kristy Sliber:
      I have most likely never agreed with
      anything Ms. Silber has written here,
      … but her 12/19 2:29pm comment
      was intelligent, and more persuasive
      than the original Willis Eschenbach
      chart.

      I think this is
      a difficult subject
      for calculating
      a number,
      but $179 billion
      is hard to believe.

      There are many spending items,
      subsidies and tax breaks
      related to fossil fuels, that are not
      necessarily primarily for “climate change”.

      Giving cash to the “Green Fund”,
      and loans to alternative energy companies,
      from the Energy Department,
      especially if never paid back,
      are certainly “climate change”
      related … and a waste of money!

      What about subsidized LED bulbs
      that are much cheaper than usual
      as a result ?

      What about research to reduce
      pollution from burning coal
      (real pollution, not CO2) ?

      What about research on better batteries?

      If I worked for the goobermint
      and wanted new air conditioners
      for my building, I’d ask for expensive,
      ultra- high efficiency air conditioners
      “to help fight climate change”
      … rather than claiming
      the old air conditioners
      couldn’t keep the building
      cool enough on the hottest days,
      and getting the request rejected.

      Would high efficiency air conditioners
      really be “climate change” spending?

      My climate science blog:
      http://www.elOnionBloggle.Blogspot.com

      • What about subsidized LED bulbs
        that are much cheaper than usual
        as a result ?

        What about research to reduce
        pollution from burning coal
        (real pollution, not CO2) ?

        What about research on better batteries?

        Why should government be subsidizing these things? if they are good and wanted, the market will flock to them on it’s own. For example, if LEDs or better batteries provide real value to customers, customers will seek them out, the more customers seek them out the greater the numbers they will sell and the lower the price will go (economies of scale) and the more companies will enter that business (increased competition also drives prices downward)

        • Endicott
          I didn’t say the goobermint
          SHOULD BE subsidizing anything,
          but they are.

          Should research on better batteries
          be binned to” climate change”?
          was my observation —
          I understand that research grant
          money is more likely to flow if the
          subject of “climate change” is mentioned,
          so it probably gets mentioned a lot.

      • Richard Greene,

        Thank you. It’s nice to hear things like that once in a while.

        The government is still subsidizing LED bulbs? Are you sure?

        My take was that there was a rebate on commercial properties that switched to LED lighting, partly because it was expensive enough back when incandescents were banned that it would create an economic burden, something conservatives had used to resist the ban (plus, of course, the idea that liberty meant the right to choose – a point I can understand).

        Rebates are efficiency incentives. One could argue that it’s to the benefit of all Americans to increase efficiency. It would be nice not to be dependent on Saudi oil. Personally, I would rather coal mining were phased out unless they can make it safer, so Virginians didn’t have such high cancer and black lung rates and the streams didn’t become tainted by mine debris. (There should be, IMO, incentives to invest in other industries in the state, and programs to give the unemployed skills to work in them. This is an INVESTMENT in human capital, not welfare!) My uncle lives in a farming community that happens to be on top of good sand for fracking, and the residents don’t want a sand mine there (who thinks about the supply of sand when considering the reserves opened by fracking? – this is MN, far from the gas fields). With greater efficiency, updating grids can be put off a little longer, and fewer power plants need to be built. You get the picture (I hope) – there are benefits to efficiency touching a wide cross-section of Americans – in my opinion.

        • LED bulbs are not “subsidized” by the government.

          They are MANDATED by the government! Thus the (Chinese) manufacturers are given a MANDATORY billion dollar a year market for every incandescent bulb ever in use – When the (cheaper) incandescent bulbs go out, a (more expensive!) new LED MUST be purchased.

          Yes, the LED’s do use less energy. But they are MANDATED by the government = a 100% market subsidy to those companies who supported the government policies.

          • When you say the government is mandating them, which government?

            In the US, the government does not specifically mandate LED bulbs. They mandate the energy usage of bulbs (so CFL bulbs would also meet the mandate, many incandescent bulbs do not) and they “subsidize” via incentives and rebates for commercial and residential entities to use energy efficient lighting measures (Which includes, but is not limited to, the use of LEDs).

            states also offer incentives, go to (you can narrow It down to a specific state)
            https://www.energy.gov/savings/search?keyword=LED

          • John,

            I couldn’t find evidence that the federal gov’t is still subsidizing the switch to LEDs. The subsidy that I found was for the conversion itself, not an ongoing subsidy for their use or purchase. If you have other evidence, please share.

            Following several of the links in the link you provided (which appear to be nearly all through utilities), some led to dead links, one was set to expire at the end of this month, one hadn’t been updated since 2017, some didn’t mention lighting anymore. I suspect most of the subsidies are no longer active.

            One might complain that these subsidies for energy efficiency are passed down to consumers through their power bills. But another way to look at it is that it could save the utility the necessity of building new power plants, enhancing the grid or other infrastructure expenditures. Demand increases price for a variety of reasons, so it could be beneficial to all in the long run.

            (Phasing out sales of incandescents isn’t quite the same as mandating the use of other lighting. I can still purchase some types of incandescent bulbs.)

          • I think we are in (mostly) agreement on this one point Kristi (It’s Christmas time, so a miracle happening is allowed).

            As I said in the post you were replying to “In the US, the government does not specifically mandate LED bulbs”. As to the other incentives, I have no idea how many of they are still active. The point was that none of them were specifically of LEDs “MANDATED by the government!” as RACookPE1978 was claiming. Of course, that’s assuming he was referring to the US government (as I also asked in my post “When you say the government is mandating them, which government?”, as he could have been referring to another countries mandates).

            Also, as I pointed out, what the US government actually mandates is the power consumption of lighting bulbs/fixtures. And while that leave some incandescents out of the mix, it doesn’t leave them all out (as you noted, you “can still purchase some types of incandescent bulbs”)

            Where I do have to disagree with you, however, is the comment “Phasing out sales of incandescents isn’t quite the same as mandating the use of other lighting.”. Sorry but that’s exactly what it means for all practical purposes when it’s the government that is forcing the phase out of a specific product (remember we are talking about a phase out that is the result of Government action. If the Government had not of interfered, there would have been no phase out as the market would have continued to buy the much cheaper product that was phased out due to the government preventing the sales of certain types of incandescents). By forcing one specific product out of the market through mandate it’s a defacto mandating of the purchase of alternative products that server that market niche – people still need light in their homes at night and during dark bad weather days. If government say I can’t purchase “A” lightbulbs it’s in effect making me buy “B” or “C” lightbulbs (or some other lighting method) to meet the needs that “A” would have met.

  10. BS…they are not counting money given to solar, windmills, car…that went belly up
    ..grants, etc to produce science that promotes this
    money spent on mitigation….

    list is too long…..

  11. Gone towards electing the right sort of politicians, ie those that will keep the gravy train chugging along.

  12. Interesting reading the comments. Everybody assumes they know where it’s going, but no one but me so far has bother to look at the site.

    There isn’t even a caption on Willis’s graph showing what the different colors mean. It’s like a mystery! A test of who can come up with the wildest conspiracy theories, or the most insulting assumptions.

    • Doesn’t take much to bring out the conspiracy theories and the claims about the left-wing/socialists starving the poor and getting rich! What about Al Gore? Ah, he’s already been mentioned. Carry on…

      • Would the money paid to universities and climastrology have been better spent on cancer research, or as stated above providing clean water for all in the third world, millions of lives saved past and future,..

        Instead they are lost, and have the corpses of those who die from fuel poverty in the first world piled atop of them.

        No conspiracy, just zero shame from the anti-human left.

        What would you expect from people who murder millions upon millions of there own unborn each year, and call it empowerment.

    • kristi

      The little red colored portion of his graph indicates the 2.5% of energy used that is from renewables… after decades of subsidies… this from a previous post.

    • kristi, I draw my own graphs. I’d had a legend on it, but in one of the many iterations that every finished graph has to go through, it got lost.

      I’ve fixed it.

      However, here’s a suggestion. Next time you see something like that, rather than getting all nasty and ugly, how about you just say “Hey Willis, looks like you forgot your legend.” Yes, I’m human, I overlook things sometimes.

      Then I’ll simply fix it, and you won’t look like a vindictive dipsh*t …

      Best regards,

      w.

      • Vindictive? How so? I was commenting on the comments, not on your graph, Willis. But why should I play nice when you call me a dipsh*t, or insult my intelligence in other ways, as you have in the past? You’ve made no friend of me, Willis, so don’t expect me to lick your boots.

        (You wrote this unnecessary paragraph: “It’s like a mystery! A test of who can come up with the wildest conspiracy theories, or the most insulting assumptions.”) MOD

        • Kristi, I don’t expect you or anyone to “lick my boots”, and if I did I’d be deeply disappointed every day—nobody has ever done that.

          Nor do I expect you or anyone to agree with me. That’s the nature of science. People disagree.

          I do, however, expect that if you or anyone sees something missing in what I’ve done, you ask about it rather than speculate and sneer about it. I do my honest best to present the truth as clearly as I can. And yes, I do make mistakes … but unlike many other folks, including prominent climate scientists, when I do make a mistake, I admit it flat-out.

          So how about this. I apologize to you, we call time out, have a reset, and we start over. My apologies.

          Then, with that out of the way, you can tell us all how we’re going to get a hundred and forty million dollars worth of value for our money this coming week. (Actually, that’s the average spend. At present we’re up to $13 billion per year, which is a QUARTER BILLION DOLLARS PER WEEK!!!)

          Because I gotta say … I’m not seeing anything worth a quarter billion per week coming out of the climate establishment. But you seem to think there is, so how about you point out where I might find the one week’s worth of work product is that we’ve paid a quarter billion for?

          Of course, you’ll need to do the same next week … and the week after …

          I await your exposition.

          w.

          • “Kristi, I don’t expect you or anyone to “lick my boots”, and if I did I’d be deeply disappointed every day—nobody has ever done that.”

            Well I can lend you a dog that’ll do that… provided you step in something interesting first…

            If the complaint is lack of clarity.. well I looked through the financial statements of a couple of US agencies (EPA. FDA} this morning. And I’m used to looking through financial statements.. And despite all the pages and graphics and signed statements there is a dearth of actual information that would identify where their(well your to be precise) money went. It’s almost llike it was deliberately obscure. I’m assuming that if I trawled through the minutes and attachments of the relevant house/Senate oversight committees I could dig it out. But that is an enormous amount of work.

            Cutting to the chase, the current climate science narrative is this:

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxqvwkmTNy8

            I’d argue that given this, we should cut all climate change funding and channel it into useful research. Workable Fusion, improving the efficiency of gas, coal and oil generation… stuff that might actually reduce the overall environmental impact. Something that is surely desired by all parties to the debate.

          • Willis,

            “So how about this. I apologize to you, we call time out, have a reset, and we start over. My apologies.”

            OK, that sounds good to me. My apologies as well. I really wasn’t criticizing your graph so much as commenting on the posts that followed.

            It’s not true that I think the quarter billion dollars/week is worth spending. I don’t have a good understanding of what the money is spent on. My point was that there’s an assumption among most readers about what it’s spent on, and that it’s wasted, without having even looked at the report.

            Assumption is antithetical to skepticism.

            I read some of the report to get a better idea, but it’s 95 pages, and I didn’t have time to read it all. A few passages:

            “Clean Energy Technology, which includes the research,
            development, and deployment of technologies to reduce greenhouse
            gas emissions and the reliance on fossil fuel, such as clean energy
            systems, geothermal, solar, wind, biomass, nuclear, and hydropower
            (water).11 It also includes technologies, programs, and processes to
            increase energy efficiency or reduce energy consumption, such as
            building efficiency, more effective transmission or distribution of
            electricity, and vehicle technologies that improve engine efficiency or
            fuel economy.”
            Science, which encompasses the activities of USGCRP and includes
            research, modeling, and observing activities to better understand
            climate change; efforts to analyze the cumulative effects on the
            environment of human activities and natural processes; and programs
            to provide climate information to policymakers and the public, in part
            to inform climate change adaptation decisions.12 USGCRP also
            reports annually on funding for climate change science among certain
            participating agencies in its Our Changing Planet reports.13
            • International Assistance, which uses bilateral and multilateral
            assistance tools to address three global climate change policy pillars:
            adaptation, clean energy, and sustainable landscapes.14 For example,
            international assistance helps countries invest in energy efficiency
            programs to reduce emissions, as well as activities to help
            communities adapt to climate change.”

            Sources of increase in funding from 2010 to 2016:
            “Clean Energy Technology. DOE programs accounted for most of the
            $3.5 billion increase in annual clean energy technology funding.
            Specifically, funding for DOE’s fusion, sequestration and hydrogen
            research (about $1.9 billion), energy efficiency and renewable energy
            programs ($656 million), as well as its carbon capture and storage
            and power systems research ($564 million) accounted for about 88
            percent of the $3.5 billion funding increase from fiscal years 2010
            through 2017, with a portion of the increase offset by decreases in
            other DOE programs, according to our analysis of OMB reports for
            this period. Funding for National Science Foundation ($486 million)
            and DOD ($417 million) research accounted for another 26 percent of
            the funding increase.16
            • Science. NASA programs accounted for most of the $653 million
            increase in annual science funding. In particular, funding for NASA’s
            science programs accounted for about 84 percent ($546 million) of the
            $653 million funding increase from fiscal years 2010 through 2017,
            based on our analysis of OMB reports. Funding for DOE’s biological
            and environmental research accounted for about another 12 percent
            ($77 million) of the funding increase.17
            • International Assistance. Department of State and Department of
            the Treasury programs accounted for the greatest increases in annual
            international assistance funding. Specifically, State economic support
            funding increased by $428 million and Treasury funding for the Green
            Climate Fund increased by $250 million, with half of the increase
            offset by decreases in other programs”

            This is not included in the expenditures, but I thought it interesting:
            ” Over the last decade, the federal
            government incurred an estimated $357 billion in direct costs from severe
            weather and fire—for domestic disaster response and relief ($205 billion),
            crop and flood insurance ($90 billion), wildland fire management ($34
            billion), and maintenance and repairs to federal facilities and federally
            managed lands, infrastructure, and waterways ($28 billion).”

            The report suggests that expenditures like these are likely to increase, and that they should be taken into account: ” In particular, we reported that a more complete
            understanding of fiscal exposures and the long-term effects of decisions
            would help policymakers make trade-offs between spending with longterm benefits and spending with short-term benefits, anticipate changes in
            future spending, and enhance control over federal resources”

            Science funding included not just “climate research” but things like atmospheric radiation measurements, satellites, terrestrial ecosystem research, and agroclimatology.

            …That’s just a glimpse. Interesting report, but it’s a little hard to summarize, and I haven’t read it all.

            Do I think it’s all justified? No idea. I’m sure there are things that I wouldn’t want to pay for, but that’s true of government spending in most areas. (There’s enormous waste in military spending, for example, and I’m not thrilled about $5 b for a wall [but I certainly don’t want open borders – have to defend myself against anticipated attacks].) There is always some waste in gov’t., and there will always be programs that some people think are worthwhile and others don’t. We are living in a nation together, and we have to compromise.

            I firmly believe that much science should be supported by the gov’t, or it would never get done, there would be too much opportunity for conflict of interest if it were funded by others, and we need to keep ourselves in the game. We draw many thousands of overseas students to study science here, adding money to our economy. There are technological benefits that do the same. Technological spending helps our infrastructure, reduces pollution and creates jobs.

            I’m sure that doesn’t adequately answer your question, but it’s all I’ve got right now.

            Very glad to have a truce, Willis. Your posts are interesting and thought-provoking. I will try to be more positive and respectful in the future.

            Regards,
            Kristi

          • Mike,

            Some of the “climate change” funding in the link from which Willis got his data is for energy efficiency – the very things you suggest.

            Regardless, it makes no sense to me to stop climate change science funding unless we can be certain that AGW is not real – and very few scientists believe that. We need to be able to plan, or we risk simply paying for disasters and smaller problems rather than preventing them (through adaptation and/or mitigation). Besides, some climate science has dual purpose, allowing us to understand weather better, predict storms etc.

        • MOD is funny! Unnecessary paragraphs get a comment? Or just mine do? Listen MOD, it’s fair enough to mention such things, but only if one does so even-handedly. Is this any more necessary to the discussion?

          “No conspiracy, just zero shame from the anti-human left.
          What would you expect from people who murder millions upon millions of there own unborn each year, and call it empowerment.”

          (Nothing was snipped or deleted,Feel better now?) MOD

          • MOD,

            NO! That’s not the point. But do what you want, it only demonstrates bias, strengthening my case that this is a biased site…but of course, that’s not news to anyone.

            (I haven’t done anything with your comments, by the way You have 2,191 approved comments….. ) MOD

    • Science(bottom), Technology(middle), International aide(top)

      For the point being made the total is what matters it has risen to $11.6 Billion in the last year and the question posed is what do you get for it?

      So Kristi are you getting value for money?

      • LdB,

        Heck no! Why should I care what happens to my fellow Americans, or anyone else? (Was that they right answer? Just trying to fit in!)

        “Over the last decade, the federal government incurred an estimated $357 billion in direct costs from severe weather and fire—for domestic disaster response and relief ($205 billion), crop and flood insurance ($90 billion), wildland fire management ($34 billion), and maintenance and repairs to federal facilities and federally managed lands, infrastructure, and waterways ($28 billion).”

        • Kristi, yes, the weather causes damages.

          However, I fear that your point is totally opaque. The weather causes damages. You know that. I know that.

          And?

          w.

          • Willis,

            I agree. And I’m not in favor of attributing all extreme weather to climate change. But at the same time, it’s weather that comprises climate, and I’m not going to assume that weather extremes are not part of patterns. It’s the assumptions I object to. Some of the extreme weather is part of climate change, some isn’t. Some patterns are probably not clear yet because there’s so much noise. Many events are simply part of natural, normal variation. At the same time, natural variation can be overlaid by climate change to make episodes more likely, more intense, or more widespread. For instance, El Ninos are normal, but they or their effect could be stronger due to climate change. Wildfire may be more likely, more extensive, and/or more damaging to do higher average regional temperatures – even while land management is a significant factor.

            I try first to keep an open mind, then I try to look at the evidence, keeping in mind that some things (like wildfires) have multiple causes. I try to be aware of my biases and my ignorance (but that doesn’t mean I’m entirely ignorant, only that there is a heck of a lot I don’t know). Most important, I try question my assumptions.

            I’m NOT saying I’m superior to others! Again, I feel I have to anticipate attacks. (Not from Willis, from anybody) I would like people to know that I am not a mindless, alarmist, anti-fossil fuel greenie. I’m really sick of that assumption.

        • So now Kristi lets see if you did your reading, even if we stopped burning fossil fuel tomorrow how long before anything real measurable change happens?

          The hint is you a taxpayer alive won’t get to see it, so you might like to ask them if this is a wise investment?

          • I should add the damage you are supposedly trying to stop assumes countries like China and Russia do the right thing, and the damage is likely not even in your own country. Given that backdrop I would say as a democracy people have the right to vote on it.

          • If we all stopped burning fossil fuel tomorrow, there would be massive death and destruction. We need fossil fuel.

        • “Over the last decade, the federal government incurred an estimated $357 billion in direct costs from severe weather and fire

          weather is not climate (come on now, surely you’ve heard that phase before. Your fellow travelers use it enough when ever skeptics point out how the weather just isn’t cooperating with their falsified theory of catastrophic man-made global warming/climate change – falsified as in every prediction that’s ever be claimed for it has failed the reality test). And how is the billions per year being spent doing anything about the weather or weather related damages?

    • Actually kristi, most of us know from our local areas of several projects where money was wasted, so why bother with the generalized numbers?
      For example, the city of Ellensburg WA, using other people’s money, installed 5 “experimental” wind towers. These were fairly small and the term “experimental” is used because something was supposed to be learned. Two things were learned.
      First, one of the five fell over in a moderate wind when it should have been making electricity. Instruments and software to determine the electricity-making capability never materialized before the falling of the tower and its turbine.
      By the end of the week the city learned the 2nd thing. Getting anything out of the wind turbines would require using money from the city’s budget. The OPM was gone.
      By the end of the week after the failure, all towers and all equipment (except for the concrete pad) had vanished from the site.
      All the money and effort was wasted.

      • There are “wind turbines” in downtown Boston, in the middle of high-rise buildings and the slow, back-and-forth winds of any near ocean, closed harbor, small shore breeze-stop for calm air-sea breeze-stop for calm air-shore breeze-stop for calm air-sea breeze environment.

        Are they producing anything but a waste of money?

      • John,

        Kind of like drilling for oil where there is none. Americans pay for that through their taxes, too.

        • kristi silber December 19, 2018 at 11:17 pm

          John,

          Kind of like drilling for oil where there is none. Americans pay for that through their taxes, too.

          Say what?

          US subsidies to the oil companies are twenty-six cents a barrel. In exchange, we get a barrel of oil. The technical name for that is a “good deal”.

          Paying for the windmills we got NOTHING in return. The technical name for that is a “bad deal”.

          Clearly economics is not your strong suit.

          w.

          • US subsidies to the oil companies are twenty-six cents a barrel.

            …and I still question this one. Many discussions here at WUWT and elsewhere have looked into this, and it turns out this $0.26/barrel is the amount of a tax reduction due to deferred (amortized) expenses of exploration, the same deferral any other business gets that invests in capital (it may be only available to those who invest in energy, but my following point still holds). Funny we have allowed our language to be stolen from us, to where a failure-to-tax becomes a “subsidy”!

        • “Kind of like drilling for oil where there is none. Americans pay for that through their taxes, too.”

          Well, as we’re discussing clarity perhaps you’d explain what you mean by “pay for that through their taxes” because generally speaking definitions of “subsidise” tend to be elastic, and this is an area of discussion where precision is a good thing.

          Secondly I’m sure that the oil producers would make exceeding rich any person who produced geophysical tech that meant they never had to drill another duster. Until then it’s a risk-related cost that is quite properly allowable against tax.

          • Mike,

            You are right. I wasn’t clear. I know there is a difference between direct subsidies and tax breaks. Oil companies can deduct from their taxes the drilling costs when they don’t find oil worth recovering. To me that is indirectly subsidizing the costs of such drilling. I also know that it counts as a …um…negative asset? Is that what it’s called? I’m the first to admit that my knowledge of business taxes is not good. Poor, in fact. It just seems like a bit of a loophole.

            But why is risk-related cost properly allowable against tax? Isn’t risk part of business investment? Hmm, I do understand the point. Have to think more about it. It’s late, and my mind is numb.

          • But why is risk-related cost properly allowable against tax?

            A more fundamental question is in order with regard to corporate taxation. Why is it done at all? Isn’t corporate taxation a terribly unfair regressive tax against the poor, especially when we’re talking about taxing energy producers?

            It isn’t as though the poor can avoid the additional costs to everything they buy when the State is so cruel as to tax energy producers, who provide the means by which everything the poor purchases is purchased.

        • Once again, kristi demonstrates that her knowledge of economics and tax law is non-existent. Of course that won’t prevent her from obnoxiously displaying her ignorance for all to see.

        • Don’t lie Kristi, Americans are not “paying for that through their taxes” when it comes to drilling for oil. There is no “oil subsidy” what there is, is normal business accounting for amortizing expenses that *ALL* business (even wind and solar companies) get to take advantage of to one degree or another. Not taxing something is not the same thing as subsidizing something.

      • John, Waste is in the eye of the beholder, or perhaps the beneficiary. Someone was paid to engineer the site, do geological testing, pour the concrete pads, provide the hardware, and cobble everything together. Not a waste from their point of view! Or in the larger view, Al Gore amassed a fortune of hundreds of millions of dollars since leaving the vice-presidency. Not a waste for him.

    • “Interesting reading the comments. Everybody assumes they know where it’s going, but no one but me so far has bother to look at the site.”

      yup!

      • Only the great English Lit grad bothered to read the page even though most people have quoted figures from the various sections and following the trail of money. No being A US taxpayer it wasn’t very exciting but I did not lots of foreign aide is being relabeled climate aide I imagine to claim credits under Paris agreement.

        Steve however is the climate science whisperer only he knows what is going on.

      • “yup!”

        Regardless of whether either of you have “bother[ed] to look at the site,” still neither of you can tell us where the money is going, which would appear only to bolster the point of the article.

        😕

  13. You think the US has poor accountability? Try getting specifics from the UN for their “wealth redistribution” activity associated with climate change. It’s like charity institutions where only a small percentage of donations actually touch the intended recipients. For a good insight check into The Clinton Foundation.

  14. How do you make a million dollars?
    Start with a billion dollars and give it to a greeny/SJW/windfarm/solar farm/IPPC/activist/…….etc etc

  15. It generated a lot of corporate welfare, political payoffs and employment for some scientists, engineers, technicians and administrators that might have skills best utilized elsewhere. Depending on perspective, not entirely wasted.

  16. I was in the Delta Sky Club @MSP a while back and sitting near a rather, well, Earthy fellow. He was discussing personnel changes at his organization. When the person on the other end of the phone brought someone’s name up he said – Oh I remember the great work she did for us on the protest at Standing Rock (Dakota Access Pipeline). This person was an “organizer” apparently. Well, the Earthy fellow said “she is very valuable to our group, let’s raise her salary to $220,000!”

    These NGO’s get grant money, donations and then plead they are working for the little person. Most if not all are paid huge wages. What education and skill is necessary to be a protest organizer and why does that rate such remuneration?

    I’m pretty sure many nurses, engineers, welders, truck drivers, social workers, assembly line workers – those who actually contribute to the GDP and well being of our society – would like a salary like that leech.

  17. Some of you might be placated by the following:

    Where has the Climate change money gone?

    technology to reduce emissions,
    science to better understand climate change, and
    international assistance for developing countries.

    The flow chart merely shows what organizations received a portion of the largess… NOT what each did with their “share”!

    That’s not remotely close enough to be considered as what it was spent on for me!

    Was it salaries, funding of Arctic/Antarctic sojourns to see how far science tourists can get before needing rescue?

    Shouldn’t scientists have “better understood science” before making all their (failed) disaster predictions? I read the Maldives only have a week left before they sink under the fast rising seas… except most of them are growing!

    It’s good to be skeptical of BOTH sides of the argument Kristi!

  18. Imagine if We the People woke up tomorrow and decided to enforce the Constitution. Not a dime of this spending is actually legal.

  19. kristi s,

    Yes, it all seems very obscure. I tried the link (first thing I did), but, as I said in another comment that has not shown up yet, the link did not work for me. I tried going elsewhere, and got the impression that most of the money goes to the Department of Energy. Question is: What do THEY really do with it ? … What accomplishments EXACTLY are being made with it ? Do they just give it to a bunch to university research programs, then do a simple okay on the funding-use report at project’s ending and say, “that’s that”? .. rinse/repeat? … or is there an actual record somewhere of what those funds bought?

    The reports that I’m reading are not very specific. … lots of words and generalities, few specifics, at least, not up front, plain and simple — as opaque as CO2 is to those IR bands, which, really, seems consistent with the whole alarm fest.

    • Robert,

      Here is the link to the report:
      https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/691572.pdf

      Is that where you were looking? It’s complex, sort of, in an accounting sense, but there’s a lot of info there.

      The DOE got a lot for clean energy initiatives: research into nuclear, batteries, reducing emissions from coal plants, more energy-efficient construction and vehicles…that kind of stuff. Implementation was part of that, I think.

      Quite a lot of the “climate change” research had the capacity to help weather forecasting and disaster prediction – double duty.

      Any opacity is likely a function of the aims of the document. It’s not that the information isn’t out there some where, it’s just that the report would be reproducing what is recorded elsewhere, and that would be a waste of money.

      No, they don’t just give it to university research programs. Every grant is applied for, with details about the intended research, where it fits in the context of other research, why it’s important, and a cost break-down. Often it will include salaries for research assistants and post-docs – but usually not the researchers’ own, since they have salaries from the institutions they work for (generally speaking). It’s very time-consuming, but beneficial for the researchers themselves to make it clear in their minds what they need to do and how it fits together with the whole picture. So, yes, somewhere there are thousands and thousands of grant applications archived that have been funded or rejected.

      Science is itself accomplishment, with a product. It seems that many here think it’s a waste of money. But it seems to me that if we assume that the science is wrong, and so stop funding it, that could leave us it a terrible situation if it’s right. CO2 mitigation aside, we need to know what to plan for, otherwise we will spend trillions of dollars in disaster relief rather than billions in prevention, all the while remaining in the dark about what to do next. Are people really so certain that it isn’t happening that they are willing to take that risk? If the science is not conclusive, what are they basing their certainty on? And if they think it is conclusive, on what basis? What evidence demonstrates that CO2 is having NO effect on climate?

  20. Hey look at this shiny object here in my hand… No, No, don’t look at what the other hand is doing… Look at this Shiny object…Squirrel!!!

  21. And Obama spent not a dime on advanced nuclear reacroes, like the molten salt reactors. A couple of months ago it was big nuclear news when the govt put out a few million bucks to several molten salt developers.

    • While I roll my eyes at kent once again banging on about the vaporware known as “molten salt reactors” (is there any topic to which he doesn’t include a mention of those things when he replies?), at least he has a point on this one. If even some of the money spent on the climate change scare went to research on molten salt reactors instead, there’s at least a slim chance that something might actually have been accomplished towards moving it out of the vaporware stage and into having a real world working version.

  22. $140 million a week, US alone. And to think our trolls get bent out shape over $150 million over 10 years from the entire world, part of which goes to some of the scientists who disagree with the global warming scam.

  23. No doubt, much just vanished, wasted, but much also had a net-negative effect on the economy. Take the Kill Coal campaign, for example. Or the incredibly misguided, and destructive “Cash For Klunkers” campaign, which destroyed perfectly good cars.

    • Cash for Klunkers made the existing used cars MUCH more expensive. Lack of supply of used cars drove up the price for the remaining cars on the market. This situation persisted for nearly two years. It distorted the used car market tremendously and punished the poor folks who needed a car. It was an unintended punishment unleashed on poor and lower middle class folks after the financial crisis killed their jobs. All of this was done in the name of saving Mother Gaia.

      I turned in a lease vehicle a year after the program started. The value of the car was $4K more than my residual value due to the market conditions. I decided to buy the car and then trade it in. I came out $3500 to the good. I benefited from the market distortion. Folks trying to buy a used car were punished with much higher prices.

  24. *Willis please provide direct links to your data rather than hiding them in the figure.
    I cannot seem to find the data you used but looking around the links provide I found these:

    from second ref under graph:
    https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/691573.pdf

    “Based on its review of the budget justifications of six agencies representing 89 percent of OMB-reported funding, GAO identified few programs (18 of 533) whose primary purpose is to address climate change. The remaining programs were multi-purpose—the budget justifications included other program goals in addition to addressing climate change. The 18 programs represented about 6 percent of these agencies’ reported climate change funding for fiscal year 2017”

    links from 1st ref:
    https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/691572.pdf

    Clean Energy Technology. DOE programs accounted for most of the $3.5 billion increase in annual clean energy technology funding. Specifically, funding for DOE’s fusion, sequestration and hydrogen research (about $1.9 billion), energy efficiency and renewable energy programs ($656 million), as well as its carbon capture and storage and power systems research ($564 million) accounted for about 88 percent of the $3.5 billion funding increase from fiscal years 2010 through 2017, with a portion of the increase offset by decreases in other DOE programs, according to our analysis of OMB reports for this period. Funding for National Science Foundation ($486 million) and DOD ($417 million) research accounted for another 26 percent of the funding increase.16 • Science. NASA programs accounted for most of the $653 million increase in annual science funding. In particular, funding for NASA’s science programs accounted for about 84 percent ($546 million) of the $653 million funding increase from fiscal years 2010 through 2017, based on our analysis of OMB reports. Funding for DOE’s biological and environmental research accounted for about another 12 percent ($77 million) of the funding increase.17

    • more from pdf
      OMB category

      Primary purpose program                                    Agency2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 
      Science Climate Research Commerce’s                         NOAA 219.9 217.8 139.5 135.5 153.3 157.1 158.0 189.9  
      Atmospheric Radiation Measurement Climate Research Facility DOE   42.2  45.8  67.9  68.1  68.6  67.4  65.4  65.4
       Atmospheric System Research                                DOE   26.4  27.8  26.3  26.4  26.6  26.0  26.4  26.4  
      Climate and Earth System Modeling                           DOE   69.1  77.9  70.7  72.9  74.0  71.1  98.7 103.5
      

      [Change to text format for data table. .mod]

    • I did a speed-read of the first bullet points in the report. Shocking. However, I think these problems are not unique to the DOD, but rather to all government agencies, as well as many of the “private” companies set up under government directives (both legislative and executive, oh, wait, the judiciary also sets up private agencies because Special Interest Groups) such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and etc. And this is a place where presumed innocence goes out the window, the only way I would believe otherwise is upon the completion of a full-scale audit of everything bureaucratic that shows they have kept their checkbook(s) balanced.

    • Ozonebust, you are being a bit misleading. The audit found an unaccounted 21 trillion in *transactions*, not cash. Those transaction were both positive and negative (and cancel out for the most part) and where the result of shuffling money around from account to account such that it was impossible to trace how exactly it was eventually spent. And spent it was. There isn’t a pile of $21 trillion sitting around in the pentagon basement. At best there’s a few billion across various account in transit towards being eventually spent.

  25. Nasa budget in unformatted table mode:

                                                  2010  2011  2012  2013  2014  2015  2016  2017  
    CLARREO Pathfinder                        NASA —    —      —     —     —     —     —    19.3 
    Glory Mission                             NASA 31.8 12.9   —     —     —     —     —     — 
     Ice, Cloud, and Land Elevation Satellite NASA —     3.8   0.7   —     —     —     —     —  
    ce, Cloud, and Land Elevation Satellite-2 NASA 38.9 59.7 130.5 165.9 182.2 126.5 117.4 112.4  
    Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2             NASA 62.0 89.0  93.4  80.3  38.2  17.5   —    10.2  
    Orbiting Carbon Observatory-3             NASA —    —     —      7.4  16.8   1.    —    26.3  
    Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment    NASA —     4.6   5.3   5.2  5.4    5.4   —     5.4  
    Total Solar Irradiance Sensor-1           NASA —    —     —      —     —     1.0   —    19.6  
    Total Solar Irradiance Sensor-2           NASA —    —     —      —     —     —     —     9.6
    
  26. That is not actually that much money given the scale of the US government. It has an annual budget of about 4 trillion dollars. And in comparison an audit of the US department of defence found that $21 trillion dollars is unaccounted for going back to 1998. In addition the current US military budget is about $700 billion per annum.

    Looking at the links much of the money is being spent on adaption to climate change which presumably would need to be spent whether or not the change is caused by human activity or not. So the US citizen is probably getting better value out of preparing for climate change (irrespective of the cause) than in buying more F-35 fighters at $90 million each.

    • Percy Jackson December 19, 2018 at 4:15 pm

      The F-35s the military needs. When properly equipped the military needs not be concerned with climate change.
      Factories and power generation are a necessity for the quick production of military supplies and equipment. Also the needs of the nations normal economy . Wind and solar can not produce 24/7/ 365. Domestic produced Gas and Coal can, debate over.
      So how much are the Chinese and Russians paying you to disarm and impoverish my country?

      Si vis pacem, para bellum

      michael

      • Mike,
        The US and indeed nobody apart from Lockheed need the F-35 fighters. They are over priced and under specced. And unlikely to ever be used except against some tin pot country with no air defences.

        • Percy Jackson December 19, 2018 at 7:58 pm
          You ever work in the industry?
          Name a few aircraft that were bad mouthed and then went on to shoot down everything they encountered.
          I will give you one the F-15. The fighter jocks pushed for the development of the F-16. How many aircraft has the F-15 and the F-16 shot down. All countries with them.
          We can go on about all the duds that became world leaders.

          michael

          • By all means Mosh, get started. Show us how knowledgeable (or not) you are on the subject rather than doing a substantive-less drive-by that displays no such knowledge.

          • There’s a large body of work by qualified SME’s that pretty much deals with most of the “F-35 is rubbish” myths. So by all means fill your boots…

          • nearly a week later and I see Steve has nothing to say to about the F35 beyond his substantive-less drive-by. Color me not surprised.

    • an audit of the US department of defence found that $21 trillion dollars is unaccounted for going back to 1998

      Percy as I pointed out to another poster who used that misleading comment:
      The audit found an unaccounted 21 trillion in *transactions*, not cash. Those transaction were both positive and negative (and cancel out for the most part) and where the result of shuffling money around from account to account such that it was impossible to trace how exactly it was eventually spent. And spent it was. There isn’t a pile of $21 trillion sitting around in the pentagon basement. At best there’s a few billion across various account in transit towards being eventually spent.

  27. With trillions spent on reenoobs, particularly in Europe, with grants, unrepaid loans, failed big reenoob manufactureres for 80 cent/kWh power, feed in tariffs, subsudized rooftop solar, some billions given to NGO activists by governments, tax deductible dashy from billionaire champaign sloshulists, dole for 30,000 dulligates to attend exotic-localed binges with prosty pin money, I dont think the diagram even touches a tiny sample of what was spent.

    To me it looks like the graph is a lefty setup to deflect what really went on. Kristi Silber was right. There wasnt much to see here. Remember when sceptics hammered on the deep cooling
    lasting almost 40 years after 1940 that had climate scientists heralding CAGC, also blaming humans? Remember also that lefty climateers mocked up an old bogus Time Magazine with a different date than an actual issue on the cooling and then “showed” it to be fake news! This article may be a similar cook up.

  28. Very Old Social Law
    Definition of a Promotion:
    “In the beginning, the promoter has the vision and the public has the money.
    At the end of the promotion, the promoter has the money and the public has the vision.”

    The Climate thing has been the most audacious promotion in history.

    In second place is the nonsense that a committee of economists can “manage” a national economy.
    There is no such thing as a “national” economy.

  29. Thank you WUWT and all of you regulars who do think and are not like those who “pretend to think”. I like coming here, as a mere layman, to find actual reports and “truth in advertising”.

  30. Nice post, Willis, and nice reply to Kristi Silber. I have been corresponding with her off line thanks to CtM on a potential upcoming post or posts (CtM calls) on soundbites and supporting crowdsourced references. I have come to believe she means well, but despite her science degree (inferred from Atherton Tablelands, 3 years field research, see her WUWT comment to IPCCAR4 extinctions guest post) hasn’t really studied ‘climate science’ and its conundrums personally or deeply. So, IMO she is welcome here as might eventually learn some real sciency climate stuff despite the ‘consensus’.

  31. An infinite part returned to the local economy. Hosting, catering and moving delegates to COP and alike junkets is a highly sought after opportunity.

    Another chunk went to PR activities, brainwashing, lobbying. Consecutively to shady numbered bank accounts.

    Mansion and yacht makers, luxury goods and high-life perks got quite some since climate subsides are crafted to benefit those who are intended to harvest them.

    Put the payola to claiming and equally corrupt vocal countries, pay China it’s due.

    No wonder that the usual gang of con-science artists and their supporters chant and preach for more at each UN sponsored congregation venue.

    There will be a few happy to be rich as long as there are countless satisfied to be poor.

    A fool and his money are quickly parted. The essential business model of any self-sacrifice claiming sect.

  32. It provided comfortable, high-paying jobs for people in the crisis industrial complex who could never get such comfortable and high-paying jobs in the private sector.

  33. Killing birds, especially Bald and Golden Eagles.

    A 2013 study published in The Wildlife Society Bulletin found that wind turbines killed an estimated 573,000 birds annually in the United States. Wind turbines are the most threatening form of green energy. (With the possible exception of the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating Facility incinerator.)

    At the infamous Altamont Wind Resource Area alone, more than 2,000 Golden Eagles have been killed by the wind turbines there. Based on a sample of a limited area of the APWRA, it is estimated that between 570 and 835 raptors are killed there annually.

    Of course the government had a solution to the killing of our national bird that for anyone else would be fined and/or serve hard time:

    The civil penalties for violating provisions of the The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act is a maximum fine of $5,000 or one year imprisonment with $10,000 or not more than two years in prison for a second conviction. Felony convictions carry a maximum fine of $250,000 or two years of imprisonment.

    In December, 2016, a new eagle-management plan announced a final rule by the federal government that would give wind energy developers 30-year permits to “take” or incidentally kill protected Bald and Golden Eagles, without requiring the industry to share mortality data with the public or take into consideration such critical factors as proper siting. The so-called Eagle Take Rule, finalized by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, puts many thousands of the nation’s protected Bald and Golden Eagles at unacceptable risk.

    Our government has a solution to every impediment.

  34. It sounds like the EU commission. They decided to get their accounts audited, got themselves a good honest woman to do the job and when she told them there was no control or accountability of where the money was going they did their level best to destroy her and her career. These are the same people who’s pay and pension is dependant on them never saying anything bad about the EU or any of it’s parts.

    James Bull

  35. Where’s the money going….
    Very easy
    It’s buying an illusion

    Its buying the illusion that ‘Everything is well’
    Its buying the illusion that ‘We have never had it so good’
    Its buying the illusion of ‘Low unemployment’ (##)
    Its buying the illusion of ‘High wages’ (##)
    Its buying the illusion of ‘Really clever science’

    And it works, we repeatedly hear the success stories here at what what:
    …..more rice
    …..more beer
    …..more corn
    …..more CO2= Global greening
    …..more Crapple Swankfones
    …..more bandwidth
    …..more data
    …..more oil & gas
    ….more Ford Fat Fifty Pickups

    Inescapable because surely, Only Rich People Can Afford to Spend that kinda dosh
    Right? How *can* you spend what you ain’t got?

    ##
    These are the actual mechanics. The money goes into creating what are effectively Fake Jobs, employing folks with poor (fake) education doing imaginary (fake) work usually inside computers.
    And they’re given shed loads of money tokens for doing it.
    So they spend their tokens. And because they (the self-declared clever ones) get more money-tokens than a lot of folks, they pay more for the stuff they buy and simultaneously raise demand.
    So its raises prices across the wider economy

    Then everyone else wants more pay, and gets it
    Thus, the ordinary punters can pay more for more stuff and because of their higher wages pay more (standard rate) tax and thus fund the money-token supply to the ‘clever ones’
    The suppliers of ‘stuff’ will also find themselves paying more tax which will go to fund the ‘clever ones’

    Win win win all the way.
    What *is* the problem?
    How can anything go wrong with such a closed, neat and self reinforcing system?

    So why do I say ‘Its An Illusion’?
    Exactly as why that oft repeated picture of the mutant (high-CO2) Christmas trees is an illusion- something is missing.
    Something that no-one wants to see. Something no-one wants to think about.
    (Possibly because the ‘clever ones’, i.e. the teachers, never mentioned it at the schools they teach at nor were even taught it at the school they went to etc etc)

    And with Very Good Reason, it is very very scary.
    Best keep up the illusion eh……
    All previous attempts at Human Civilisation kept up The Illusion and it all Worked Out Fine For Them……

    • Very good Peta. A few years ago I crunched some publicly available numbers. That year, coal had produced 55% of the electricity generated in the US; solar produced 1.6%. Thus coal produced 34 times what solar did.

      The coal industry did this with 80,000 employees. Yet the solar industry was touting the fact that it had created 250,000 jobs!

      With 34 times more electricity generated using one-third the employees, coal was over 100 times (2 orders of magnitude!) more efficient than solar.

      It’s as if you’d hire 100 men with shovels rather than one man on a backhoe to dig a long trench for a pipeline; 100 men dragging single plows behind horses rather than one modern tractor to plow your fields; 100 boys with grass shears rather than one kid with a riding mower to cut your grass; etc., you get the picture. Whoopie! A job for everybody!

      For its entire existence, mankind has been struggling to invent “labor saving devices” to remove the burden of unnecessary drudgery and grinding poverty from its back. We’ve succeeded spectacularly with the use of fossil fuels–as they say, in the US, even the poor people are rich (when compared to the 3 billion people worldwide that subsist on less than $2 a day.) With our cheap, abundant, and reliable energy, we in the west have achieved a level of affluence that allows us to expend funds to attack the most pressing problems of the world, and solve many of them. But now comes modern day pied pipers that are leading us backward to those golden days of vastly shorter life spans, primitive medicine, and 14-hour work days just to put food on the table. Has the entire “civilized” world gone crazy? Or is it just the ruling elites desperately trying to maintain their hold on power and most of the riches of the world?

    • If the previous $180 billion can be shown to have been spent wisely, then an argument can be made for spending the next $180 billion. But if the previous $180 billion can be shown to have been wasted, than an argument can be made for *not* spending the next $180 billion on more of the same. But such arguments depend on knowing how that “already gone” money was spent.

      • I propose that inability to show where the money went is sufficient justification to redirect the next $180 billion – to something/someone/somewhere that can show not only where the taxpayers’ money went but also what we the taxpayers got for it.

        • However, by not knowing where the money went previous, you still run the risk that the something/someone/somewhere will simply be just as non-transparent when all is said and done despite any assurances before-hand about being able to show where and what, as it’s a systemic problem with government spending that transparency is an exception rather than the rule.

  36. Anthony,

    You should apply to all the government agencies who give them for a climate grant. After all, you do provide a valuable c!image service by reporting on all the new climate “scientific findings” as well as alternative real scientific studies regarding climate and it’s analysis. How can they turn you down? Number one climate site on the web!

  37. “Regardless, it makes no sense to me to stop climate change science funding unless we can be certain that AGW is not real – and very few scientists believe that”

    Well there are a number of scenarios, projections and narratives:

    You identify the first one : If it’s not real cease funding it

    Others

    “We’ve established it’s a disaster and nothing can be done about it” don’t fund it fund adaption and mitigation instead..

    “We’ve played with this for thirty years now and are still not in a position to make a prediction that can be scientifically tested and proved/falsified in a reasonably current time frame” Stop wasting resources and F*ck off….

    “We’re too stupid to apply the method outlined in our experimental decline and can’t meet the scientific standards required of 12 year old seccondary school students” Go play with this plasticene and let the grown-ups talk.

    “Our error bands are so large compared with the effect we’ve measured we might as well not have bothered”
    there’s the door….

  38. “But why is risk-related cost properly allowable against tax? Isn’t risk part of business investment? Hmm, I do understand the point. Have to think more about it. It’s late, and my mind is numb.”

    First thing here is that the economic fundamentalist position is that all taxes are ultimately paid by ordinary people. Either directly through income and purchase taxes, tariffs and duties. Or indirectly via the price paid for goods and services. In this view taxing corporations is a ruse to gain support from the ignorant and to conceal from people the actual burden of tax. And to be fair they have a point, no matter how armadillo hatty some of them get.

    We have corporations to you Yanks, limited liability companies to us here; Because most people are deterred from taking risks by unlimited personal liability. The prospect of being financially destroyed if an enterprise fails. Having established the corporate entity, and decided that some of the tax burden is taken there rather than at the final point of sale, or from employees via income tax .. the guiding principle is that profit is taxable rather than turnover. Otherwise many industries with low gross margins but acceptable capital returns would be destroyed.

    So corporate taxes are generally levied on revenue minus outlay. Over the years this has evolved into the tax codes which identify the outlay elements which are allowable when calculating tax. Of course it’s not allowed to be that simple….A problem for the government has been that in periods where a corporation is investing they might pay no tax even though notionally profitable and paying dividends. So outlay is categorised into Capital investment and expenses. Expenses are offset against revenue in the year they occur, Capital is recovered over multiple years, the exact number depending on the type of investment. This allows the government the prospect of recovering tax from a corporation with a large expenditure on investment projects.

    So drilling a well, developing a new drug or indeed putting expense into any risk is allowable against tax. depending on the exact nature of that risk it might be pure expense immediately offset against tax or a long term capital project recovered over 25 years or a mixture of lots of these depending on the tax regulations applicable for each case.

    All this gives the government either through pure and noble reason….. or via lobbying and maybe bribery.. scope to adjust the tax code to influence how corporate funds are spent. If you disagree with the allowable expenses or the depreciation periods applied in a particular industry, there is a temptation to call them “subsidies” which actually they are not. A subsidy being an actual payment made rather than a lower amount of tax calculated.

    Where the regulations do seem more favourable to corporations than they could be, it’s always worth asking why. In the case of oil exploration it’s to make sure that the USA has sufficient well and storage capacity to withstand any disruption to the international oil trade. Such as a major conflict or a repeat of the 1970’s OPEC hissy fit. The government is pretty much obligated to do this as long as the miltary industrial and domestic sectors remain reliant on fossil fuel energy (oil, gas and coal)

  39. A $700 billion military budget and they can’t even secure their southern border .
    Trump asks for a fraction of 1% of that military budget and the Democrats give him the middle finger .
    America is screwed because Washington actors look after their self interest , lobbyists , politicians , and super pac bag men while the public interest no longer rates .

    Put all 2000 of those Syrian troops along the Border until the Democrats quit selling the country out .
    $180 billion on pretending to set the earth’s temperature while the country crumbles .
    Unlimited ,unaccountable debt has killed the American dream for hundreds of millions .
    No wonder Trump got in .

Comments are closed.