ALERT: A Joyful Day in DC! White House declares ‘global warming’ funding is ‘a waste of your money’
Via The Hill:
BY DEVIN HENRY – 03/16/17 03:58 PM EDT
The White House on Thursday defended a proposal to slash federal funding for climate change programs, calling it “a waste of your money.”
“I think the president was fairly straightforward on that: We’re not spending money on that anymore,” Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney said at a White House briefing on Thursday.
“We consider that to be a waste of your money to go out and do that. We consider that a basic tie to his campaign.”
The budget proposal takes aim at climate change programming throughout the budget. It zeros out funding for State Department climate change programs, including American contributions to international climate change accounts, and the budget also reduces funding for advanced energy and renewable power research.
Environmentalists and greens have slammed the budget, saying lawmakers should not cut funding for climate change during a period of increasing global temperatures and the greenhouse gas emissions that cause that.…
Bloomberg News: Obama ‘stashed’ $77 billion in ‘climate money’ across agencies to elude budget cuts
Key excerpts: At the National Science Foundation, the geosciences program almost doubled to $1.3 billion.
The budget for NASA’s Earth Science program increased 50 percent, to $1.8 billion.
Feds awarded $1 billion through its Community Development Block Grant program to projects protecting against climate change-related natural disasters.
In 2012, the Federal Highway Administration made climate-adaptation projects eligible for federal aid.
The Bureau of Indian Affairs created the Tribal Climate Resilience Program.
The range of climate programs is vast, stretching across the entire government.
The Congressional Research Service estimated total federal spending on climate was in 2013. It concluded 18 agencies have climate-related activities, and calculated $77 billion in spending from fiscal 2008 through 2013 alone. But that figure could well be too low.
Obama Administration goal was to make ‘programs hard to disentangle’
Obama ‘integrated climate programs into everything the federal government did’
Obama sought to integrate climate programs into everything the federal government did.
…
Via:
To Cut Climate Money, First GOP Must Find Where Obama Stashed It
by-
Obama aides spread money across the government to elude cuts
-
Most recent estimate puts tab at $77 billion from 2008-2013
President Donald Trump will find the job of reining in spending on climate initiatives made harder by an Obama-era policy of dispersing billions of dollars in programs across dozens of agencies — in part so they couldn’t easily be cut.
There is no single list of those programs or their cost, because President Barack Obama sought to integrate climate programs into everything the federal government did. The goal was to get all agencies to take climate into account, and also make those programs hard to disentangle, according to former members of the administration. In some cases, the idea was to make climate programs hard for Republicans in Congress to even find.
“Much of the effort in the Obama administration was to mainstream climate change,” said Jesse Keenan, who worked on climate issues with the Department of Housing and Urban Development and now teaches at Harvard University. He said all federal agencies were required to incorporate climate-change plans into both their operations.
The Obama administration’s approach will be tested by Trump’s first budget request to Congress, an outline of which is due to be released Thursday. Trump has called climate change a hoax; last November he promised to save $100 billion
Fake Weather: Weather Service Rejects Accurate Snow Forecasts — Manipulates Public Instead – Copies Tactics From Climate Debate
Climate Depot Analysis
WASHINGTON DC – What the hell!? The National Weather Service (NWS) has now officially admitted its highest mission seems to be manipulating public behavior, not informing the public of the most accurate weather forecast.
Weather Con Borrows From Climate Con! WEATHER SERVICE DECIDED LAST MINUTE NOT TO CUT SNOW FORECAST – “Out of extreme caution we decided to stick with higher amounts,” Greg Carbin, chief of forecast operations at the Weather Prediction Center in suburban Maryland, told The Associated Press. Carbin said a last-minute change downgrading snowfall totals might have given people the wrong message that the storm was no longer a threat….Dramatically changing forecasts in what meteorologists call “the windshield wiper effect” only hurts the public, said Bob Henson, a meteorologist for the private Weather Underground. (Kudos to AP’s Seth Borenstein for a hard-hitting and informative article.)
Morano: According to the NWS, informing the public about the latest downgraded snow forecast would have ‘given people the wrong message’ and telling the public the storm fizzled “only hurts the public”!” We have now officially expanded the era of “fake news” to include “fake weather.”
This line of reasoning and manipulation of forecasts is an insult to the public and to weather forecasting professional everywhere.
The NWS’s primary function is to inform the public in situations like this, not make forecasts based on how to best influence public behavior. It is not the “National Psychiatric Service”, but the National WEATHER Service. The NWS has taken it upon themselves to decide that the public was unable to hand the truth about the 2017 Blizzard Bust.
The public expects scientifically accurate and up to the minute forecasts, not calculated politically dubious forecasts that hide the truth. At least it was refreshing to know that Washington DC, local WTOP News Radio (103.5 FM) bucked the NWS trend and featured meteorologists on Tuesday admitting the storm was fizzling for DC. It was heartening that some meteorologists were more concerned about giving the public accurate forecasts, not treating us like children who need to be lied to.
NWS Aping ‘Global Warming’ Tactics!?
Sadly, the NWS has sunk to the levels now routinely seen in the “global warming” debate. The climate change debate in many instances has morphed into the attitude of “we must not reveal to the public exactly how uncertain we are about our dire ‘global warming’ forecasts because they may not …
Weather Con Borrows From Climate Con! WEATHER SERVICE DECIDED LAST MINUTE NOT TO CUT SNOW FORECAST
|
|
|
|
WASHINGTON (AP) — Before the first snow fell, U.S. meteorologists realized there was a good chance the late-winter storm wasn’t going to produce giant snow totals in big Northeast cities as predicted. But they didn’t change their forecasts because they said they didn’t want to confuse the public. National Weather Service meteorologists in Boston, New York, Philadelphia and Washington held a conference call Monday afternoon about computer models that dramatically cut predicted snow amounts. They decided to keep the super snowy warnings. “Out of extreme caution we decided to stick with higher amounts,” Greg Carbin, chief of forecast operations at the Weather Prediction Center in suburban Maryland, told The Associated Press. “I actually think in the overall scheme that the actions (by states and cities) taken in advance of the event were exceptional.” On Monday, the weather service predicted 18 to 24 inches of snow in New York City. By late Tuesday afternoon, Central Park was covered with a little more than 7 inches of snow with rain and sleet still falling. Other areas, including upstate New York and Connecticut, received more than a foot and a half of snow. Swaths of Pennsylvania were walloped by 20 to 30 inches of snow. Carbin said a last-minute change downgrading snowfall totals might have given people the wrong message that the storm was no longer a threat. It still was, but real danger was from ice and sleet in places like New York City and Washington, he said. Dramatically changing forecasts in what meteorologists call “the windshield wiper effect” only hurts the public, said Bob Henson, a meteorologist for the private Weather Underground. Carbin stood by the decision. “The nature of the beast is that there’s always uncertainty in every forecast and we have to get better at describing that,” Carbin said. The right amount of precipitation fell, but it came down as rain and sleet because the rain-snow line moved inland, according to Carbin and private forecasters. The rain-snow line is a 50 mile wide north-south swath where cold Arctic air from the north and west clashes with warm, moist air from the Atlantic. West of the snow line saw heavy snow while east had rain and sleet. The snow line happens to center on New York City so it was a bigger deal than if the line had been over a rural area, said |
Study in journal Nature: HALF of Arctic ice loss driven by natural swings — not ‘global warming’
- Decline in ice cover due to ‘random’ and ‘chaotic’ natural changes in air currents
- The rest has been driven by man-made global warming, scientists said
The Arctic icecap is shrinking – but it’s not all our fault, a major study of the polar region has found.
At least half of the disappearance is down to natural processes, and not the fault of man made warming.
Part of the decline in ice cover is due to ‘random’ and ‘chaotic’ natural changes in air currents, researchers said.
Part of the decline in ice cover is due to ‘random’ and ‘chaotic’ natural changes in air currents, researchers said. The rest has been driven by man-made global warming, scientists said.
The rest has been driven by man-made global warming, scientists said.
The research means that although it is widely feared that the Arctic could soon be free of ice, this could be delayed if nature swings back to a cooler cycle.
Loss of the sea ice is predicted to have numerous effects on the planet: these include reflecting less light into space, potentially making the earth warmer and more predictable.
It will also reducing the habitat of animals such as polar bears.
Natural variations in the Arctic climate ‘may be responsible for about 30–50 percent of the overall decline in September sea ice since 1979,’ the U.S.-based team of scientists wrote in the journal Nature Climate Change.
Sea ice hit a record low in September 2012 – late summer in the Arctic – in satellite records dating back to 1979, and declines by around 13 per cent each year.
The ice is now around the smallest for mid-March, rivalling winter lows set in 2016 and 2015.
The study, separating man-made from natural influences in the Arctic atmospheric circulation, said that a decades-long natural warming of the Arctic climate might be tied to shifts as far away as the tropical Pacific Ocean.
Lead author Qinghua
Flashback 1974: Global Cooling Caused Droughts, Floods, Blizzards, Tornadoes, Typhoons, Hurricanes & Polar Vortex!
In 1974, everything which is currently blamed on global warming, was blamed on the longest global cooling trend on record: 0.5C cooling since 1945.
15 Jul 1974, Page 3 – The Daily Republic
14 Jul 1974, Page 1 – Lincoln Evening Journal
These was problematic for NASA’s fake climate science, so they simply rewrote the past to eliminate the cooling.
International Polar Bear Day Sees Population Pop 27% Despite ‘Global Warming’
On International Polar Bear Day 2017, the world’s polar bear population is up 27% from 2005 – despite some environmentalists’ fears of global warming.
The day is intended to raise awareness to the supposed plight of the polar bear:
“Feb. 27 marks International Polar Bear Day, an annual event meant to raise awareness of polar bears and their conservation status. Polar bears are considered a vulnerable species by the International Union for Conservation of Nature.”
Conservationists continue to warn of the polar bear’s doom because their claims are based on “unverifiable predictions,” not proof, ClimateDepot.com Publisher Marc Morano tells CNSNews.com:
“There is a lot to celebrate about polar bears today. The feared ‘global warming’ has failed to harm the species as their numbers continue to increase.
“It’s odd that a species whose numbers continue to escalate is still being hyped as being “endangered” based upon unverifiable predictions of the future.
“The greatest threat that polar bears face may only be from the electrons in the hard drives of the scientists predicting polar bear doom decades from now.”
Lomborg Blasts UN Paris Treaty’s $100 Trillion Price Tag For No Temp Impact: ‘You won’t be able to measure it in 100 years’
Via: Newsbusters – By James Powers
$100 trillion for a 0.3 degree temperature drop.
That’s a price tag that sounds acceptable to liberals, but not to everyone. An economist and environmentalist who says man-made climate change is real still argues that is “an incredibly expensive way to do almost no good.”
Self-proclaimed “skeptical environmentalist and” president of the Copenhagen Consensus Center Bjorn Lomborg appeared on FBN’s Varney & Company on Feb. 14, to discuss The Paris Agreement. He advised the new president to drop the agreement and focus on other solutions. He also criticized the expense of the deal, for what it would supposedly do to temperatures.
“If everyone does all they promised — and remember the track record ain’t that good — but if everyone does all they promised and do it all the way through the century, we’ll reduce temperatures by end of the century by 0.3 degrees Fahrenheit,” Lomborg said. “You won’t be able to measure it in a one hundred years,” he added.
“Yet the costs will be somewhere between $1 trillion and $2 trillion a year. Paying $100 trillion for no good is not a good deal.”
Lomborg recommended that President Donald Trump drop the Paris Agreement but added that “if you want to do something about climate” then we must “invest in research and development into green energy sources.”
He said the debate about the Paris Agreement is “about identity politics. It’s about feeling good… but the climate doesn’t care about how you feel. It’s about doing good.”
“The reason why we emit CO2 — remember, we don’t do it to annoy Al Gore — we do it because it powers everything we like about civilization. So we want permanent and good and cheap energy. Right now we get that from fossil fuels. If we are going to get it from some other source, we need that to be much much cheaper.”
That U.N. climate treaty was approved in late 2015 and signed by former President Obama in April 2016. Reuters reported the deal’s terms began to take effect Nov. 4, 2016.
The liberal media have exaggerated the supposed positive impacts of the agreement. NBC’s Ron Allen praised Obama’s support for the climate agreement and claimed it was …
UK Guardian: Trump’s likely science adviser calls climate scientists ‘glassy-eyed cult’
The man tipped as frontrunner for the role of science adviser to Donald Trumphas described climate scientists as “a glassy-eyed cult” in the throes of a form of collective madness.
William Happer, an eminent physicist at Princeton University, met Trump last month to discuss the post and says that if he were offered the job he would take it. Happer is highly regarded in the academic community, but many would view his appointment as a further blow to the prospects of concerted international action on climate change.
“There’s a whole area of climate so-called science that is really more like a cult,” Happer told the Guardian. “It’s like Hare Krishna or something like that. They’re glassy-eyed and they chant. It will potentially harm the image of all science.”
Trump has previously described global warming as “very expensive … bullshit” and has signalled a continued hardline stance since taking power. He has nominated the former Texas governor Rick Perry, a staunch climate sceptic, as secretary of energy and hopes to put the Environment Protection Agency (EPA) under the leadership of Scott Pruitt, the Oklahoma attorney general, who has been one of the agency’s most hostile critics.
John Holdren, Barack Obama’s science adviser, said Happer’s outspoken opinions would be a “substantial handicap” for a job that has traditionally involved delivering mainstream scientific opinion to the heart of policymaking.
“Every national academy of science agrees that the science is solid, that climate change is real,” he said. “To call this a cult is absurd and … an insult to the people who have done this work.”
Happer also supports a controversial crackdown on the freedom of federal agency scientists to speak out about their findings, arguing that mixed messages on issues such as whether butter or margarine is healthier, have led to people disregarding all public health information.
“So many people are fed up of listening to the government lie to them about margarine and climate change that when something is actually true and beneficial
Analysis: Climate data has been altered for decades to promote ‘global warming’ fears
In 1990, Tom Karl and the IPCC showed that Earth was much warmer 900 years ago, during the Medieval Warm Period (MWP.)
But by 1995, climate scientists had made the decision to get rid of the inconvenient MWP.
U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works
By 2001, Michael Mann and the IPCC followed up on their plans, and eliminated the MWP.
IPCC Third Assessment Report – Climate Change 2001
The 1990 IPCC report also had detailed Arctic sea ice satellite data from NOAA, which showed that Arctic sea ice extent was much lower in 1973 than in 1979.
Government scientists also knew in 1985 that Arctic sea ice extent was much lower in the 1940’s and 1950’s than it was in 1973.
Projecting the climatic effects of increasing carbon dioxide (Technical Report) | SciTech Connect
The pre-1979 Arctic sea ice data was extremely inconvenient, so NOAA simply made it disappear. They now start their graphs right at the peak year in 1979. I have been trying to obtain the pre-1979 IPCC satellite data from NOAA for over six months, and they have been “unable to locate it.”
ftp://ftp.oar.noaa.gov/arctic/documents/ArcticReportCard_full_report2016.pdf
In the 1950’s scientists were well aware that the “thin crust” of Arctic sea ice was disappearing, and predicted an ice-free Arctic within a generation.
The Changing Face of the Arctic; The Changing Face of the Arctic – The New York Times
Scientists were also aware that by 1970 Arctic sea ice was getting much thicker and more extensive.
U.S. and Soviet Press Studies of a Colder Arctic – The New York Times
This prior warmth and subsequent cooling in the Arctic was inconvenient, so NOAA and NASA made it disappear.
Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis
In 1985 Phil Jones At CRU showed a large global warming spike around 1940, followed by about 0.5C cooling.
Projecting the climatic effects of increasing carbon dioxide (Technical Report) | SciTech Connect
The 1940’s spike was inconvenient for Phil Jones and the rest of his cohorts, so they discussed how to get rid of it.
And that they did. They have completely eliminated the 1940’s blip and subsequent cooling. It no longer exists in the temperature record.
https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadCRUT4.png
NASA has also removed the inconvenient 1940’s warmth and subsequent cooling, just as scientists discussed doing.
In