Monday, November 22, 2010

Climate Money

Quoting Joanne Nova
(I inserted the link):
“The US government has spent over $79 billion since 1989 on policies related to climate change, including science and technology research, administration, education campaigns, foreign aid, and tax breaks.

Despite the billions: ‘audits’ of the science are left to unpaid volunteers. A dedicated but largely uncoordinated grassroots movement of scientists has sprung up around the globe to test the integrity of the theory and compete with a well funded highly organized climate monopoly. They have exposed major errors.”
Click the image & read the rest:
Click the image & read the rest
Professor Carter says $100 billion has been spent (worldwide) on climate research alone.
The IEA estimates $45 TRILLION will be spent to micromanage climate.
But, the cost/benefit ratio would undoubtedly be no better than the Kyoto disaster.
Recent research calls into question the “benefit” of cooler temperatures.

Click here for some basic climate change science.
Click here to debunk the hysteria topic by topic.

35 comments:

RICH said...

Biggest waste of money.

Why don't we just dig a big hole in the ground, place our money in it, then cover it up.

Probably have the same effect. The earth won't care. It will break it down, recycle, and convert it into new energy.

SBVOR said...

RICH,

IMO, some unknowable portion of the climate change research was probably worth funding. It is, after all, useful to have some rough idea at what point Mother Nature will once again cover New York City with 1,000 ft. tall glaciers (about 50,000 years from now).

In fact, when the first questions were raised about CO2, even that was worth exploring. But, we have enough information now to reasonably conclude that man made CO2 will never produce any sort of catastrophic climate change. We can further reasonably conclude that whatever tiny impact it may have on the climate will be utterly overwhelmed by natural forcing factors which we have no control over.

As this chart (from the cited link in the main body of this post) illustrates, where government really went wrong was in pushing the fantasy that global government was even capable of micromanaging climate change -- much less that they should do so or that doing so would produce even the slightest positive effect.

It is a classic example of government arrogantly and tyrannically overreaching.

David Appell said...

The vast majority of the US govt's ~$4B/yr spending on climate research goes towards launching and maintaining satellites, and other sensors.

RICH said...

Come on now SBVOR, a few key words leaves you sounding a little like the IPCC :)

"some unknowable portion of the climate change research was probably worth funding."

I agree with you, albeit, it still leaves a lot of room for variablility and supposition.

Bottomline: Stop wasting our hard earned money!!! We get it already, the climate changes. Who knew?

David Appell said...

RICH wrote:
> Bottomline: Stop wasting our
> hard earned money!!! We get
> it already, the climate
> changes. Who knew?

This is a gross misrepresentation of what climate scientists are concerned about.

Of course they (and everyone) knows that "the climate changes." You're being disingenious. The question is (of course) -- how will it change with the *additional* forcings man is now placing on the climate, via (mostly) GHG emissions, soot emissions, and land use changes. These are forcings new to the planet in the last 150 yrs, and pretending that the situation is like it was before then is simply false.

SBVOR said...

RICH (Nov 23, 2010 4:28:00 PM),

When the truth is vague, vagueness is truth. :-)

We need lots of cuts in every area of spending -- starting with the big three entitlements. The fourth big entitlement (ObamaCare) needs to be straight up repealed.

SBVOR said...

David sez:

"The vast majority of the US govt's ~$4B/yr spending on climate research goes towards launching and maintaining satellites, and other sensors."

That sounds probable. If you can substantiate and quantify that assertion, it will carry more weight.

SBVOR said...

David sez:

"how will it change with the *additional* forcings man is now placing on the climate, via (mostly) GHG emissions, soot emissions, and land use changes. These are forcings new to the planet in the last 150 yrs, and pretending that the situation is like it was before then is simply false."

That may be, but...
Can you show me even the slightest bit of evidence suggesting that anthropogenic forcings have yet resulted in anything which is even remotely close to being outside the norms of natural variation?

Can you cite anything other than the laughable IPCC computer models (or anything else from the thoroughly discredited IPCC) offering any reasonable likelihood that anthropogenic forcings will ever produce anything outside these norms?

Please don't embarrass yourself by citing the Michael Mann Hockey Stick fraud.

Before you cite something, you might want to check my list to see how thoroughly I have already debunked it. Doing so could -- again -- save you some embarrassment.

RICH said...

"This is a gross misrepresentation of what climate scientists are concerned about."

I suppose at the forefront of what climate scientists are concerned about, is puting food on the table, in the form of funds and grants -- hence the cartoon at the top of this thread.

I don't have enough time to breakdown every piece of excrement wasted in the name of climate science, but a few hundred thousand here, a couple million there, it all adds up.

Personally, I am sick of it.

Everyone has a cause, but nothing unites people better than talking about the weather. No climate. No weather. Anyway...

"The vast majority of the US govt's ~$4B/yr spending on climate research goes towards launching and maintaining satellites, and other sensors."

How is wealth distribution (cap and trade) going to help save the planet, when most of the world relies on us for the technology and money needed to obtain this data?

[Poof]

Take away the engine which creates wealth, and you take away the funding for climate science.

Brilliant.

If the last decade is any indicator of what global warming will be like, we have nothing to fear. The planet is stable -- It's the global warming alarmists that are not.

SBVOR said...

RICH (Nov 23, 2010 6:27:00 PM),

Sorry for the delay in posting your comment.

Blogger.com automatically and incorrectly dumped it in the spam bucket. I am not sure what triggered Blogger to do this. But, I flagged it as "not spam" and that got it published.

Blogger may have a trigger for the number of comments posted within some time frame. Personally, I have no objection to commenting frequency. So, keep them coming!

David Appell said...

RICH wrote:
> I suppose at the forefront of what
> climate scientists are concerned about,
> is puting food on the table, in the form
> of funds and grants

If you think this I can only assume that you, too, are willing to sell your integrity and honesty for a few dollars. So how does this play out in your life? Are you lying to your bosses for the sake of your salary and maybe a bonus?

The history of science over the last 400 yrs has amply demonstrated that science gets to the truth, regardless of who does it or what they are being paid.

Moreover, your claim is just stupid, as it fails to acknowledge all the money being spent by anti-climate change forces to deny climate science. And I wonder why you would ever again take a prescription pill, since there is far, far more money at stake in the biomedical field than anything in the climate field.

Can you name even one climate scientist who has admitted he's taken a pro-AGW position for the money? Just one?

David Appell said...

RICH wrote:
> How is wealth distribution (cap and trade)
> going to help save the planet,

CnT is not "wealth distribution" -- it is simply requiring people and companies to pay for the harm they do.

Shouldn't those who negatively impact the world be required to pay for it? If not, then who should pay for it?

David Appell said...

RICH wrote:
> If the last decade is any indicator of
> what global warming will be like, we
> have nothing to fear.

This is completely wrong, and even stupidly wrong.

Global temperatures in the first decade of the 2000s increased by 0.23C, compared to that of the previous decade, according to NASA GISS records. That's a very large amount: a 2.3C/century change, if projected linearly (which surely underestimated the problem). That would be +4F in 100 years. That's huge and certainly not congruent with "nothing to fear."

David Appell said...

RICH wrote:
> I don't have enough
> time to breakdown every piece of
> excrement wasted in the name of
> climate science,

In other words, you can't be bothered with the actual facts, and would prefer to just cling to your preconcieved notions, regardless.

I think we now know where you're coming from.

SBVOR said...

David sez:

“your claim is just stupid, as it fails to acknowledge all the money being spent by anti-climate change forces to deny climate science.”

Quoting Joanne Nova:

“The US government has spent over $79 billion since 1989 on policies related to climate change…

Meanwhile in a distracting sideshow, Exxon-Mobil Corp is repeatedly attacked for paying a grand total of $23 million to skeptics—less than a thousandth of what the US government has put in”


By the way…
ExxonMobil long ago stopped funding climate science research. Why? Because they figured out that mere quantitative facts could not compete with CAGW propagandists who were utterly dishonest in quantifying the funding and describing the real financial incentives.

The overwhelming financial incentive for climate scientists is to sound the AGW alarm. It has been (correctly) suggested that the best way to ensure your next research project will NOT be funded is to even hint that AGW might not be a problem.

Meantime, any climate scientist puts his job at risk if he/she expresses even the slightest deviance from the IPCC political orthodoxy. Do you really believe that government money and abuse of power has not corrupted climate science? I find that suggestion darkly laughable.

SBVOR said...

David sez:

“Global temperatures in the first decade of the 2000s increased by 0.23C, compared to that of the previous decade, according to NASA GISS records.”

1) I normally require all assertions of fact to be substantiated. You never do so. That is a very bad practice for somebody who describes himself as a “journalist”.

2) I tried to warn you about embarrassing yourself by citing utterly discredited propaganda sources.

Even alarmist-in-chief Phil Jones knows there has been no statistically significant global warming in the last 15 years.

Even the alarmists at NOAA admit:

“The trend in the ENSO-related component for 1999–2008 is +0.08±0.07°C decade, fully accounting for the overall observed trend. The trend after removing ENSO (the ‘ENSO-adjusted’ trend) is 0.00°±0.05°C decade.”

Sources which are even remotely credible will remove (or at least account for) ENSO (el NiƱo Southern Oscillation) effects from any trend data.

SBVOR said...

David sez:

“CnT [Cap and Trade] is not ‘wealth distribution’ -- it is simply requiring people and companies to pay for the harm they do.”

1) Can you document and quantify any harm done? No, you cannot.

2) Ottmar Edenhofer, a German economist and IPCC Co-chair of Working Group III begs to differ with you. But, it was intuitively obvious to the rest of us.

David Appell said...

SBVOR wrote:
>> CnT [Cap and Trade] is not
>> ‘wealth distribution’ -- it is simply
>> requiring people and companies to pay
>> for the harm they do.”

> 1) Can you document and quantify any harm
> done?

Yes -- the IPCC ARs have covered this in great detail, estimating the damage at 3-5% of GDP.

Have you read these reports?

I highly doubt it. Frankly, you don't seem very interested in detailed studies.

David Appell said...

SBVOR:
> 1) I normally require all assertions of fact
> to be substantiated. You never do so. That
> is a very bad practice for somebody
> who describes himself as a “journalist”.

This comes from my very own analysis of the data. You can view the relevant spreadsheet here:

https://spreadsheets1.google.com/ccc?key=tDKNKlgB7Vk4kDQq96pa7Uw&hl=en#gid=0

See Column U, row 132.

David Appell said...

sbvor:
> 1) Can you document and quantify any harm
> done?

What do you mean by harm or "danger?"

Dangerous to whom? People? All people? Poor people? Rich people? Africans? Or Australians? Texas corn farmers? What about Russian and Canadian wheat farmers? Oregon vineyards? Polar bears? Migrating birds? Glaciers? Reservoirs? Fish? Plankton? Frog species in central American that already seem to have gone extinct from climate change?

How dangerous? How much change in regional drought indices is "dangerous?" Or does it depend where? California va. Australia? New Mexico vs. the Sahel? Is it dangerous to a Texas corn farmer if his corn crop is only 50% of normal this year due to their drought, or does it have to be 65%? Or 50% two years in a row? Or five years in a row? If it's dangerous to him but advantageous to commodity traders, is it still "dangerous?" What if it results in lower food prices, but less farmers? Is that dangerous, and, if so, how much dangerous?

What is the unit of danger, anyway?

Was it dangerous to the ~35,000 French who died in a huge heat wave a few years ago?

Is it dangerous to have coral now bleaching? How much coral degradation must take place before it is dangerous to other ocean inhabitants, or even man? 75%? 90%? Please define.

Would a 30 cm rise in sea level be dangerous to the Netherlands? Or would it take 80 cm? What about to Venice? Or south Florida? Is it the same danger for Venice as for south Florida? Or is it only half as dangerous? If so, how are you mathematically defining dangerous?

David Appell said...

SBVOR wrote:
> Can you show me even the slightest bit
> of evidence suggesting that
> anthropogenic forcings have yet resulted
> in anything which is even remotely
> close to being outside the norms of
> natural variation?

Current rates of change are at the 3-sigma level. This has been known for 20 years. If you do not know at least this much, it's clear you have done very little research and reading. My role is not to be your tutor, and until you show some evidence of having done at least a basic amount of reading and research I cannot waste any more time here -- you aren't even trying and are just taking the easy way out, as I'm sure you know yourself.

RICH said...

"Are you lying to your bosses for the sake of your salary and maybe a bonus?"

No. I am the boss. I don't rely on anybody but myself to make a living. And my toughest critics, my customers, repeatedly call me back.

I give them great service at an affordable price. And I work my ass off. Are we clear?

"CnT is not "wealth distribution" -- it is simply requiring people and companies to pay for the harm they do. Shouldn't those who negatively impact the world be required to pay for it?"

Not wealth distribution? Negatively impact the world?

You are a flippin nut!

As a veteran and the son of immigrants, I can proudly say that no nation in the history of the world has done more to help other nations in need. You sir, are a pathetic, miserable little man.

As for the rest of your diatribe, I will leave it to SBVOR to try and enlighten you. And good luck arguing climate change. For 3 years, I posted and read comments at Accuweather's Global Warming blog, until they climate changed their format.

SBVOR is the best I have ever seen.

SBVOR said...

David sez:

“the IPCC ARs have covered this in great detail, estimating the damage at 3-5% of GDP

There you go again…
(citing purely political and thoroughly discredited propaganda sources).

Even knowing how worthless the IPCC reports are, I have read large portions of each AR -- certainly enough to understand the purely political nature of the IPCC.

SBVOR said...

David sez:

“You can view the relevant spreadsheet here”

I’m not interested in your spreadsheet.

Both NOAA and Phil Jones admit to the facts (which you, obviously, prefer to ignore).

David Appell said...

SBVOR wrote:
>> “You can view the relevant spreadsheet here”
> I’m not interested in your spreadsheet.

Of course--naturally you're not interested in actual date or actual calculations.

This makes you a waste of time.

SBVOR said...

David (Nov 23, 2010 8:06:00 PM),

In your typical propagandistic form, you assert lots of utterly unsubstantiated allegations of harm -- some of which are already proven false -- and utterly fail to demonstrate that CO2 emissions had anything to do with it. But, as we both know, that proof is not available.

Now, I realize that -- for you -- this is an article of faith (in the single most dangerously destructive religious cult EVER). But, the rest of us are not members of your cult.

SBVOR said...

David sez:

“Of course--naturally you're not interested in actual date or actual calculations.

This makes you a waste of time.”


You take data from a brazen propaganda source (GISS), further manipulate it to suite your own propaganda agenda and then expect me to show interest when your own allies refute the essence of your assertion?

Yeah…
Not gonna happen!

SBVOR said...

RICH sez:

“SBVOR is the best I have ever seen.”

Wow, thanks RICH.

SBVOR said...

David,

You have become an anachronism!

Despite all your efforts, you utterly failed to so much convince the readers of Scientific American to believe in the CAGW hoax.

Come on…
If you want to be once again hip and cool, you’re going to have to abandon the CAGW cult and get on board the (already debunked) biodiversity train.

SBVOR said...

David sez:

“Current rates of change are at the 3-sigma level.”

As usual, NO substantiating evidence.

Why do you waste your time and mine with this utterly unsubstantiated drivel?

Oh, yeah…
That’s what propagandists do. Real journalists substantiate their assertions and cite their sources. What? Are you too embarrassed to cite your source?

David Appell said...

>> “Current rates of change are at
>> the 3-sigma level.”

> As usual, NO substantiating evidence.

Again, you have not done due diligence. If you want to refute modern research, you need to at least be aware of it. You clearly are not. It's not my job to be your tutor.

SBVOR said...

David (Nov 23, 2010 8:06:00 PM),

You might as well have cited this laughable list.

Try this…
Zero in on a single “harm”.
Quantify the “harm”.
Quantify to what extent CO2 emissions were responsible for the “harm”.

Of course, we both know you cannot do that.

SBVOR said...

David (Nov 23, 2010 8:58:00 PM),

Still too embarrassed to cite your source? No surprise there.

David Appell said...

SBVOR wrote:
> David
> Still too embarrassed to
> cite your source? No
> surprise there.

This kind of juvenile taunting is exactly why I'm not going to waste any more time here (plus the fact that you're afraid to reveal your real name).

I'm certainly not "embarrassed" to list sources, and clearly I never have been. Suggesting so like this just tells me you're more interesting in scoring cheap points than seriously debating.

Bye.

SBVOR said...

And, David runs away after declining THREE TIMES to simply cite his source.

That tells me everything I need to know about this alleged "journalist".

Hot Topics:

BEST Data - No Warming Over Last Decade
The AMO as a Driver of Climate Change
Fact check - The wealthy already pay more taxes
Rare Earth Elements Spell Doom for Green Fantasies
Wikipedia’s Climate Doctor
ClimateGate - The latest updates
Dr. Tim Ball on ClimateGate - The end of AGW hysteria?
ClimateGate: The Musical - Hide The Decline!
Lindzen and Choi SHATTER the IPCC Computer models!
It’s OFFICIAL! We HAVE elected our own Hugo Chavez!
Health Care “Reform”
Cap & Trade - It’s just a giant tax (on EVERYBODY)
The Radicals in the White House
ACORN - The truth
Transparency - Obama promised it. So, where is it?
The Cause of the Housing Debacle
Fiscal Responsibility - In Obama’s Fantasy World
Atlas Shrugged: From Fiction to Fact in 52 Years
Iraq War Media Deceptions 101 - Why the Iraq invasion was justified and necessary
Climate Change 101 - Learn what the SCIENCE says about the biggest hoax EVER!
Obama - on Climate Change
Obama’s Climate Czar - The most dangerous politician in the United States
Obama’s Climate Czar - Her Socialist revolution has begun
Compare the current recession to previous recessions
Obama - Historic & Catastrophic!
Is Obama a Socialist? You BETCHA!
Makers & Takers - Spread the wealth
Obama = International Crisis
The economic case against Obama
The comprehensive case against Obama
The deficit case against the Dems
A Liberal Supermajority? Watch Out!
Examine the series you should have read before voting!
Maggie’s Totalitarian Political Religion
“Kill him!” - Just another media lie?
Journalistic Integrity? - WHERE?
The post about the TED Spread
Save the nation from the Entitlement binge!
Market Reaction to $700 Billion Bailout Vote
Drill Here, Drill Now - Quantitative Facts
ANWR - Drill There, Drill Now
ANWR Matters - Here’s why
Coal Liquefaction (Liquid Fuels From Coal)
The Ethanol Debacle
Pickens Plan - Don’t Fall For it!
Energy Tomorrow Radio - GOOD Stuff!
Economic Forecast
Iraq
Obama
More…

Labels

Blog Archive