facebook twitter subscribe

Susan White to Lead InsideClimate News

A Day to Move Beyond Fossil Fuels
view counter

Donate to SolveClimate News

Once a day
Get Articles by e-mail:

or subscribe by RSS

Also
Get Today's Climate by e-mail:

or subscribe by RSS

House Republicans Seek to Remove U.S. Funding for UN Climate Efforts

Their primary targets are the IPCC and UNFCCC, key programs designed to educate policymakers about climate science and slow warming worldwide

Aug 26, 2011
Rep. Connie Mack (R-Fla.)

WASHINGTON—House Republicans are applying a search and destroy tactic to international funding for global warming this budget season. It goes like this: Ax any line items with the words "climate change."

Their primary targets are a pair of crucial United Nations initiatives designed to slow warming worldwide and educate policymakers about the evolving science of climate change.

On the chopping block for 2012 are millions in funding for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the world's leading scientific advisory body on global warming. The IPCC shared the Nobel Peace Prize with Vice President Al Gore in 2007, and governments often use its periodic reviews of climate risks to set targets for reducing carbon emissions.

The GOP-led effort would also cut all U.S. funding for the 19-year-old U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the main forum for the global effort to limit emissions of heat-trapping gases. UNFCCC climate treaty talks are mired in longstanding rich-poor rifts and mistrust of the United States for its refusal to ratify the 1997 Kyoto Protocol and accept binding emissions limits.

Those who support the cutbacks say they are a sign of severe belt-tightening times. But critics say Republicans are using the budget crisis to hide their loathing of any kind of climate initiative.

Even though eliminating funding for IPCC and UNFCCC has little chance of gaining traction in the Democrat-majority Senate, some worry that the negative messages these efforts are sending will reverberate around the globe and neuter this nation’s ability to lead on the climate front.

"We cannot disengage from the world," said Jake Schmidt, who directs international climate policy for the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental advocacy organization. "Yes, these are tough fiscal times but zeroing out these funds is not going to put us back in the black."

But Nicolas Loris, an environmental policy analyst at The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, said scaling back funds for global warming is a fiscal necessity.

"When we're trillions upon trillions of dollars in debt, it's necessary to consolidate and prioritize where we're getting our biggest bang for the buck," Loris said. "If the IPCC has the clout people say it does," perhaps countries in Europe or elsewhere could pick up the funding. "I don't think the IPCC is going to disappear."

He added that the financial squeeze shouldn't jeopardize this country's status as a leader on climate change.

Jim DiPeso, policy director for the nonprofit Republicans for Environmental Protection, said it's absurd that Congress is contemplating shutting off dollars to such landmark initiatives as IPCC and UNFCCC. An already-tense atmosphere on Capitol Hill becomes hyper-taut when politicians hide behind supposed deficit-hawk credentials to justify shrinking the budget to match their ideology, he added.

"It's clear that budget issues and debt issues have taken all the oxygen out of the room," he said. "Any issue that has been over-politicized is just going to be a sitting duck. Both parties are looking to slice unpopular programs. And for the Republicans, climate change has a big target on its back."

One-Two Punch

The strategy to gut U.S. international global warming funding progressed from talk to action in the form of a one-two July legislative punch before Congress left town for its August recess.

The first punch, which could very well pass the full House, is the appropriations bill passed by the subcommittee responsible for funding the State Department and foreign operations. The second punch came from Rep. Connie Mack (R-Fla.). He attached an amendment to a separate House authorization bill that would restrict funding to mitigate the impact of global warming overseas. Mack serves on the House Foreign Affairs Committee and chairs its Western Hemisphere subpanel. His amendment, more symbolic than realistic, is considered less likely to pass.

Ostriches

Climate  change not withstanding, the fact remains that the world is consuming its energy resources faster every year. Every year the consumption rate increases. Although there are still untapped and unknown reserves, they are very definitely, a finite resource.


The biggest nay sayers for the development of alternate, cheaper or renewable energy, are those that have the most to lose, should the world turn away from fossile fuel based energy. They have created the biggest propaganda campaign against renewable energy since the tobbaco companies and their campaign against any body who said that smoking wasn't healthy.


As far as climate change is concerned, then there are some that say the evidence points one way and others say it points another. Isn't it better to be safe than sorry? Everyday people are being told to us a condom to avoid STDs. Everyday people insure their homes and cars because maybe, just maybe, something untoward may happen.


Just ask yourself. If I were pointing a gun in your direction, would you hide or just stand there?


After all, I am a poor shot and maybe the gun isn't loaded.

not on the top 1000 things i worry about

money spent on climate change does not feed children in africa or help with women's sufferage around the world. Slavery is on the increase, and for crying outloud their are pirates in the indian ocean. the UN has more important thing to do and if they can't we don't need them to tell us what is important.

Republicans are Communists

I grew up under Communism in Poland. the place where I grew was one of the most polluted parts of Europe because of the coal and steel production. Communist rulers were suppressing most and sometimes all of the information about the level of air contamination because it did not fit into their imagery of industrial production as the universal problem solver. And they were using what amounts to magic: slogans and cliches which were suppossed to take care of all the difficulties posed by their policies. Republicans are doing exactly the same.

Then is my son a car...

...since he once slept in the garage?

It is true that Communists, in general care very little for environmental issues. And, one might think, or pretend to think, to show ideological purity, that Republicans also care very little for environmental issues.

What Don Jose fails to take into account is that Communism and Republicanism are political concepts, and they couldn't be further apart. In fact, environmentalists are the most left-leaning of all so-called public interest groups.

When the Soviet Union collapsed under it's own weight, basically rendered impecunious from their inability to outspend Reagan on defense, Communist parties all over the world re-formed as Green parties. Green is just another way of being Red.

you're joking

Some Republicans are trying to prevent John Q Public from getting ripped off (for the umpteenth time and for the hundred millionth dollar) and that makes them "evil," right?  

Climate alarmism a conspiracy

I wish those in Congress all the luck in the world, in trying to pin down all of the federal funds (money from OUR pockets-- who pay taxes) that goes into the whole climate alarmism scare-mongering efforts designed to create more government taxes and regulation.  This whole conspiracy is a determined effort to destroy America as we know it, working through organizations such as the UN. We simply need to defund the UN's presence in the United States-- and send them to a place like their current crowning achievement, LIBYA.  And those in Congress will find that those who are part of this conspiracy against America, SITTING RIGHT (or more specifically, LEFT) NEXT TO THEM.

INVEST NOW: Snake oil, swampland, desert acreage, climate change

Al Gore is a real world Barney Fife.   Gore had to find something to do after his failed attempt running for president.

He couldn't swindle us into voting for him then and he has failed to swindle the globe into voting for his climate gate scam.

Snake oil, swamplands, desert acreage and climate change all rank in the same category. Gore's goal is not saving the children. Gore's first goal is a return on his investment in the energy sectors. Gore's second goal is to shift capital, investment and US dollars overseas to the constituents who have supported his climate gate scam as payback for their help and assistance.

He knows that it's much easier to garner support from societies and lobbyists from developing countries. It's quite a simple transparent scam actually. Tax the air you exhale and give the cash to his wallet first and his supporter's wallets second.

There's a reason that politicians and professors can't get jobs in the real world
like everyone else. Think about how successful Gore might have been financially
if he had put all of this effort into developing something prosperous and useful
for society like Steve Jobs has done.  But, nope it's much easier to steal
hard-earned money than it is to earn it yourself.   Gore is a fat, creaky,
musky old ship with a bunch of holes in it and he's about to sink like the Titanic.

People with common sense don't purchase snake oil from a Barney Fife.
Idiots do. And they deserve everything they receive from their investment.

Caveat Emptor.

Too easy on him

The Fife character was at least <i>sincere</i>.  Gore not only rebuilt his brand after a failed presidential bid, he became a cynic and essentially mocked people who felt sorry for Gore getting gyped out of a Chief Executive slot - with the exhorbitent fees Gore charges for appearances and endorsements to support a lifestyle in excess of that led by Warren Buffet.  

 

The individual who knows Gore better than anyone else walked out the front door after thirty years of marriage to him.  She could probably give a picture of Albert that would make Caligula look like a saint (but won't). 

Elections have consequences,

Elections have consequences, especially when Republicans win them.

When they're in power, they aggressively push their ideology into Legislation.  When they're in the Minority, they aggressively block anything that doesn't fit their ideology.  They preach Patriotism, but in reality, to them it's always Party over The People, or the Country.

And just so ya know, I was a Republican for many years... years when I wasn't really paying attention.  Big mistake.

Elections have consequences, especially when Democrats win them.

When they're in power, they aggressively push their ideology into Legislation.  When they're in the Minority, they aggressively block anything that doesn't fit their ideology.  They preach Tolerance, but in reality, to them it's always Power and Control over The People, or the Country.  They claim they want to help the "People" but they keep them enslaved while lining their own pockets and live high on other peoples money (See Nancy Pelosi's financial gains this year alone).

And just so ya know, I was a Democrat for many years... years when I wasn't really paying attention.  Big mistake.

-There, I fixed it for you.

Climate comments and money

In most of the web sites I review on climate change, I see repeat copies of the same  "anti" arguements, even down to the exact wording. It appears that the overwhelming number of contributers are against the concept of a changing climate even though 70 of the population acknowledges the problem.  Finally, many of the comments attack the messenger rather than the message.  An exchange of ideas is replaced with name calling and put-downs.   I cannot help but wonder how many of these repeat dissertations are from people who are in some way paid by the fossil fuel industry.  The concept here seems to be that  if the number of ant- climate change comments  outweight any rational argument, any verified data, peer reviewed research or viable theories, then it will convince people that the do nothing approach is best (for the fossil fuel industry). The precautionalry principle is in effect now for hurricane Irene.  Move to a safe place, take precautions, don't sit in the path of the storm to see what happens. If you do, and you are wrong about the severity of the storm, the consequences for you and your family will be dire. People are, in fact, moving during calm clear weather because the science shows a big storm is coming. They are not waiting to see the wind and rain move in.   However, when the same scientists say climate change is on its way with devistating effects, the reaction seems to be disbelief,  stay put, do nothing and wait to see what happens.  Amazing.    

We have a choice folks. Read on:

 A Catastrophic CO2 CLIMATE Crisis?

Total out of control and runaway unstoppable warming would be preferable to living on a planet whose temperature is managed by Carbon Trading Markets run by corporations and politicians. Call me a former climate blame believer now. Count me out.



  

  

 

climate

Politicans can create and implement policies against: funding climate change initiatives, continued aquisition of knowlege, and basic  climate science research.  They cannot legislate a policies against climate change; the climate won't listen. It will do what the physics and chemistry it has been saddled with direct it to do.  With such strident convictions against the reality of climate change, perhaps the Republicans could suggest to those living in Texas, Arizona, Nevada and the rest of the south that they will be expected to stay where they are (base on their "no problem" convictions), even if they run out of water. Perhaps the massive number of climate records broken this year in the US and across the globe are irrelevant, never to be seen again (or not).. Perhaps historic Hurricane Irene ( another record breaker) is also irrelevant; just another storm. If you are wrong on climate change, suck it up and do without all the entitlements. Then explain to the rest of those impacted why you were so right.  

AGW cult

It is truely amazing that so many still buy into the AGW myth. With soooo much good science showing clearly that CO2 has a very minor and diminishing effect on global temperatures, I simply must conclude that AGW is indeed a religeon now. INdeed the IPCC should be disbanded. It is as corrupt as the organisation that spawned it.

Strange, then, that over 97%

Strange, then, that over 97% of people currently publishing in the area of climate science are convinced of three things:
1.)  The global climate is changing at a (geologically) rapid rate.
2.)  People are producing much or most of that change.
3.)  The change will ultimately be large enough to cause hardship for people, just a few generations down the line.
You can check these numbers in any number of places, including Wikipedia.

My point is that, despite what you and a frightening number of politicians like to shout out, there IS a heck of a lot of good science done demonstrating these three things.  It says something that not even the petroleum scientific communities dispute the above!  So when you claim that "soooo much good science showing clearly that CO2 has a very minor and diminishing effect on global temperatures," I really have to wonder what you're smoking.  You're not just seeing the world a different way than I do or most scientists do, you're actively MAKING UP "facts".  Put boldly, you're simply WRONG.

When you hit the bong pipe

When you hit the bong pipe too much, you get paranoid.  So put it down, and go get a life

Global Warming

Gary, you have to stop reading the comics and think they are news. News ususally isn't full of pretty colors and pictures drawn by artists. Try some of the other parts of the paper, and stop watching Faux Noise for your informaiton.

Remove Funding for Climate Control

Thanks, Elizabeth, for the article and for allowing me to comment.

I am a former NASA Principal Investigator for Apollo, a former member of Greenpeace, an environmentalist, and a leftist Democrat who once voted for Al Gore and Barack Omaba.

No more.  It appears that the integrity of government science was compromised by a 1971 agreement between Henry Kissinger and Chairman Mao to make "anthropogenic global warming" the common enemy by pretending that Earth's heat source is stable [1] in order to save the world from the threat of mutual nuclear annihilation, end the space race, and unite nations.

Those noble goals cannot be achieved by government deception, as the illustrated in the life of Madam Curie [2].

With kind regards,

Oliver K. Manuel

Former NASA Principal

Investigator for Apollo

omattumr@yahoo.com

References:

1. O. Gingerich and C. De Jager, “The Bilderberg solar model,” Solar Physics 3, 5-25 (1968): http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1968SoPh....3....5G 
2. Denise Ham, “Marie Sklodowska Curie: The woman who opened the nuclear age”, 21st Century Science & Technology Magazine, pp. 30-68 (2002-2003). 

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/wint02-03/Marie_Curie.pdf 

 

 

Can we just stick to the science?

It's now about those mean old Republicans. It's about the scientific method.

The IPCC hasn't proven their case. To the contrary, their case gets undermined every day as we see how shallow it is and, as with ClimateGate, how politically motivated it is. There are no '2,500 scientists' but basically a group numbering under 50 who review each other's work and seek to destroy any contrary opinion.

As Einstein pointed out, it only takes a single experiment to kill a hypothesis. Every day we are seeing new data coming in that kills the premise of AGW. 

As far as some mean-spiriited attack on Hansen -- puh-please. His boss at NASA (upon retiring) said that Hansen was an embarrassment to the department and a bit of a loon. In any event, the climate realist camp is in no way funded to the extent of, or undertaking the hardball tactics as shown by Mann, Schmidt, Jones, Trenberth, McKibben, etc.

Rather than conspiracy theories or ad hominems, let's stick to the science. And this is where AGW is falling apart as real-world observations deviate from computer climate models.

Like what "new data"?

This message is a confabulation of someone who doesn't care about science at all.

1. IPCC review process has been cleared by FOUR independent evaluations. It represents the summation of the best available science on climate.

2. "Real world observations" like what? Computer models are SIMULATIONS. They represent the real world within uncertainty ranges. In fact, "real world observations" come in practically every day that demonstrate the predicted effects of planetary warming.

 

How about this friend. I challenge you to put in a Google news alert on using the following terms:"global warming" "climate change". Monitor the "real world observations" that are coming in. Look at the ones derived from legitimate sources, doing legitimate research.

Come back in a week and tell me what the data says.

Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science

Suggested reading:

"Republican Presidential Candidates vs. Climate Science," by Dana, Skeptical Science, Aug 24, 2011

To access this informative, article, click here.

Republicans are terrorists

Republicans are terrorists and very near future generations of Americans will treat them as such. This is Their Finest Hour. Any party that systematically denies reality and in so doing  causes the death of tens of milliions if not hundreds of millions if not billions  of people has ceased to be a legitimate political party and has instead become a Jim Jones style band of fanatics. 

 

I pity the fate of their now -leaders. Once, nazis thought that no one could touch them either; that they WERE the law.

 

Then things changed. 

Bring it.

Seriously, bring it.  We'll see you in the streets (if you sober up enough to get off the couch).

Defund IPCC ASAP

We now know the IPCC is corrupt as they have now ignored and suppressed important science like aerosol formation and clouds which cast a huge shadow on CO2 as the primary driver of warming as well as using non-peer reviewed "NGO activist" garbage in their reports and not identifying it as non-peer reviewed material.


Defund them ASAP and then we need to clean house here in the USA and get rid of the "hide the decline" crew that physicist Richard Muller at Berkeley has outed.

Mis-reading science

The CERN study on cosmic rays and their possible effect on cloud formation is interesting but has a long way to go before one can draw any conclusion about the effect of global warming. A quick search on Google will confirm this. As for Prof. Mueller, The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project was launched by Richard Muller, a longtime critic of government-led climate studies, to address what he called "the legitimate concerns" of skeptics who believe that global warming is exaggerated. But Muller unexpectedly told a congressional hearing last week that the work of the three principal groups that have analyzed the temperature trends (including the IPCC that Republicans want to de-fund) underlying climate science is "excellent.... We see a global warming trend that is very similar to that previously reported by the other groups."     


Thus, no matter who much right-wing ideologues try to abuse and misread science, the truth is just a damn hard thing to get rid off. Now, I certainly think that we have much more to learn about climate change, but to simply 'wish it away' will not work.

Response to Christian

I don't think I'm an ideologue because I once believed CO2 was the primary driver of global warming. I still think CO2 contributes to warming but it is becoming much harder for me to accpt the feedbacks.


The GCR line of scientific investigation DOES have a long way to go I agree, but you underestimate its relevance to the science. It effectively kills the "Science is settled" propaganda because the CO2 herd had already condemned GCR as not having any merit at any level. IMO the CO2 herd and the idea of consensus science also takes a hit with the GCR findings. It points out how vulnerable GCMs are by affirming that they aren't completely based on the physical world. Scrutiny of climate models which are used to predict future climate, had already come under criticism prior to Kirkby's findings and this will only get worse for the models. The "rush to judgement" to condemn man for all warming will be reined in considerably.


Kirkby was already able to increase aerosol size from 2 nm 10 nm and while he is remained understated in his manner he and others will be working hard to find the missing chemicals needed to uncover the true physical process for growth to 100 nm and then much will change.  I would imagine Kirkby's research will also pull other scientists away from the CO2 herd. It is not if but when. I am patient  and I can wait.


As for Muller he also once thought the hockey stick was excellent too. I'm sure he is aware of missing heat and he is now aware of GCRs. He and Judith Curry have opened the door in allowing skeptics into the arguement and you will start to see more of this as Kirkby lectures.


My point is still valid that the IPCC did all they could to obstruct honest science in a direction that was heretical to the CO2 warming herd. If they were a truly an apolitical organization they would have been studying GCRs in the mid 1990s and by not doing so their credibility is damaged. I choose not to defend the indefensible. There are holes everywhere in the IPCC position from missing heat in the oceans to investigations into bad climate pseudoscience like this:


http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gGRt-HfFr1IVWv9v7jG96L-AqXyQ?docId=CNG.45727151c364895d7a5d0eec10fcf733.141

I can wait :*)

I'm no ideologue but if it makes you feel better to pretend I am, fine. The GCR line of scientific investigation DOES have a long way to go I agree, but you underestimate its relevance to the science. It effectively kills the "Science is settled" propaganda because the CO2 herd had already condemned GCR at the smallest level as nonsense. The CO2 herd lost their sheen of perfection in consensus. It points out how vulnerable GCMs are by affirming that they aren't completely based on the physical world. Scrutiny of climate models which are used to predict future climate, had already come under criticism prior to Kirkby's findings and this will only get worse for the models. 


Kirkby was already able to increase aerosol size from 2 nm 10 nm and while he is remained understated in his manner he and others will be working hard to find the missing chemicals needed to uncover the true physical process for growth to 100 nm and then much will change.  I would imagine Kirkby's research will also pull other scientists away from the CO2 herd. It is not if but when. I am patient  and I can wait.


As for Muller he also once thought the hockey stick was excellent too. I'm sure he is aware of missing heat and he is now aware of GCRs. He and Judith Curry have opened the door in allowing skeptics into the arguement and you will start to see more of this as Kirkby lectures.


My point is still valid that the IPCC did all they could to obstruct honest science in a direction that was heretical to the CO2 warming herd. If they were a truly an apolitical organization they would have been studying GCRs in the mid 1990s and by not doing so their credibility is damaged. I choose not to defend the indefensible. There are holes everywhere in the IPCC position from missing heat in the oceans to investigations into bad climate pseudoscience like this:


http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gGRt-HfFr1IVWv9v7jG96L-AqXyQ?docId=CNG.45727151c364895d7a5d0eec10fcf733.141


 

The IPCC does not pursue

The IPCC does not pursue climate science in an independent objective fashion. The CLOUD study at CERN has just revealed that IPCC models may not account for effects on Earth's warming phase. The theory held that galactic cosmic rays altered cloud formation based on Solar impact on Earth's Magnetosphere. We now know that GCRs influence aerosols much more than man by a factor of between 10 and 100 times. This was suspected 15 years ago but the IPCC ignored it and blackballed the scientists working in this area of research as heretics and deniers of the consensus "CO2 is the primary driver of warming" theory. Physicist Richard Muller from Berkely has stated that a 2% change in cloud cover would overshadow any man made CO2 impact.


The 2007 IPCC report involved only one solar physicist as atestament to their unobjective approach to their "political" science. There are several other non-CO2 based scientific reasons for ice retreat for example that have been ignored and all you get from the IPCC is CO2 CO2 CO2 because the World Bank is so invested in carbon trading. As always follow the money. Carbon trading has been one of the biggest scams foisted on humans.


Kill the climate funding to the UN. The sooner the better.


Here is professor Muller explaining how IPCC scientists spliced two different data sets in order to "hide the decline" in the tree proxy data that the IPCC wanted to use to negate the long held science proxies of the MWP. Muller accepted and taught the IPCC version until he did detailed review of the proxy material and methodology to discover for himself the "hide the decline" trick. Listen tp him eviscerate these scientists and his comment that these scientists will be removed from his listed of trusted climate researchers. As soon as we're done with the IPCC we need to focus on cleaning are own house next. Watch.


 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BQpciw8suk

The March of Folly

Those who the Gods would destroy, they first make mad. And how.

We're still funding this?

We should have defunded this a long time ago.

If the US really wanted to

If the US really wanted to 'lead on the climate front' it would publicly disavow the acknowledged fraud that is the man-made global warming movement and put the tens of billions of dollars saved into looking after the environment.

Can't Face the Truth

Put our heads in the sand, so they won't have to deal with the aweful truth. This was done by the Bush Administration also. Read Mark Bowens' excellent account in "Censoring Science: Inside the political Attack on Dr. James Hansen and the Truth of Global Warming".Unfortunately, Physics and Chemistry are not funded and will continue to warm and change the ecosystems of the planet as we continue to burn these dirty fuels. The non-voting public (youth) will pay the pay for our folly and curse us for it when we no longer can say "it ain't so".

But you have one big

But you have one big problem.  Coal use has gone up by 50%(in 10 yrs) and global temperatures have been flat for about 14 years.  Don't Ya Know?

http://notrickszone.com/2011/08/25/coal-consumption-jumps-almost-50-yet-...

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1997/plot/hadcrut3gl/f...

check your numbers.

 

Evil Republicans

The Republican capacity for evil never ceases to amaze me. 

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <p> <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <h1> <h2> <h3> <ul> <li> <ol> <b> <i> <p> <br>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Youtube and google video links are automatically converted into embedded videos.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Images can be added to this post.

More information about formatting options