Earth day

JoeinNY wrote: OverMyHead wrote: Must be da moneee Yes indeed it must be the money, top ten (by percentage of donations going to republican candidates) republican supporters… Illinois Tool Works: 95.9 percent ∙ Cooper Industries: 93.6 percent ∙ Devon Energy: 93 percent) ∙ Bloomin' Brands (formerly Outback Steakhouse): 93 percent ∙ Eaton: 92.7 percent ∙ Timken: 91.7 percent ∙ Marathon Petroleum: 91.7 percent ∙ ExxonMobil: 90.2 percent ∙ Halliburton: 90.2 percent ∙ Anadarko Petroleum: 90 percent tell me again how democrats make money from accepting science as a source of information upon which to construct policy?   If I recall it somehow involves taxes or something that they don’t actually keep… I can’t really follow it… how denying science makes money for republicans, well even the morons the GOP keep electing to the house of representatives can figure that one out.

Joe, I thought we were talking about 250 scientists. As to following the money, Who is paying these scientists for their work? Who choose these particular 250? How many skeptics participated , or was this just choir practice with everyone singing along to the same old tune? Did all the participants agree with the findings? Inquiring minds want to know.

As to your list, here is another

Heavy Hitters: Top All-Time Donors, 1989-2014


     list

Notice you have to get down to 17th to find an organization that gives more to republicans than democrats.

I don't know if following the money is a good indicator as a lot of science is funded by government grants and I doubt this administration gives much money to organizations that find that climate change is not a man made problem. The supporters have a lot of money at stake as well.

Riley wrote: I don't know if following the money is a good indicator as a lot of science is funded by government grants and I doubt this administration gives much money to organizations that find that climate change is not a man made problem. The supporters have a lot of money at stake as well.

I could probably quit my university job today and have a salary three times as large in a week if I made the move to industry. The "money" as you say does not lead to academic research. Prestige perhaps, but not money.

The "administration" has very little control over how federal research dollars are allocated, other than some larger-scale priorities. Generally speaking, scientists oversee where/how federal research dollars are spent.

Bruce,

Yes, I definitely oversimplified the money angle. Gotta get the money to keep the lab going, and while it is true that essentially no funding goes to deniers, I'd say that is because there are no credible scientists who are deniers. Of course you could argue that they've all been forced out of science, but then you start getting into a circular argument. The problem is that if you don't "believe" in climate change then the entire system is going to seem wrongheaded, sort of like how non-believers view religious groups. Science isn't a religion though, it is borne of evidence and data, so while it is indeed a human project with all of the pitfalls that come along with that, it really isn't very easy to make science some arm of a political agenda (at least one that isn't supported by evidence). That was tried to some degree in the Soviet Union, referred to today as "Lysenkoism", and the results were both laughable and tragic.

I don't know all of the ins and outs of all the funding agencies, and there are many more than just federal ones, but again from my experience in academia at least, the "controlling party in Washington" has very very little say in how federal research dollars are allocated. As I said before, research monies are doled out by other scientists; the heads of the major federal research agencies like NSF and NIH are scientists, not politicians. If you want to get a better idea of how the money is distributed there is a pretty good summary on the Wikipedia page about the NSF.

Dave please find a reasonably intelligent 6th grader and have them explain to you why a "study" with that title would not by definition be called science.

It strains credulity to suggest that money is behind those who accept the facts of man made global warming and that somehow the fossil fuel funded deniers have nothing but altruism as their motivation. I understand how nice it is to hear that something is not ones fault and that nothing needs to change... but come on... are we saying that climate scientists under bush reached a different conclusion?

As I suspected, the new "Climate Disruption" report released last week by the Obama administration is written by scientists or groups with an agenda to push. Good news article summarizing the report I read on Newsmax.

I will ask the question again, if the "Climate Disruption" issue is so dire, why don't the Senate Democrats immediately put legislation on the floor and pass it to be on record as to their stance on the issue. They won't do it because.... IT WON'T PASS! The clear headed American people that don't buy this hooey would simply vote them out in November. Report is below.....



Scientists Slam Latest Doomsday Climate Report

Climatologists and other experts are blasting a new climate change report from the Obama administration, calling it a "litany of doom" that objective scientists won't take seriously.

The National Climate Assessment (NCA), an 840-page report compiled by 300 scientists and experts that was released at a White House event on Tuesday, warns that climate change is a clear and present danger.

"Climate change, once considered an issue for a distant future, has moved firmly into the present," according to the report.

Rising temperatures, it asserts, will be responsible not only for more drought, wildfires, flooding, and sea level rise, but also an increased risk of heat-related deaths.

The report states that the effects of climate change are evident in every region of the country, according to Gary Yohe, a Wesleyan University economist and vice-chair of the NCA advisory committee.

"One major take-home message is that just about every place in the country has observed that the climate has changed," he told the Guardian. "It is here and happening, and we are not cherry-picking or fear-mongering."

But that is exactly what the experts are seeking to do, critics charge.

Heartland Institute Senior Fellow James Taylor declared: "Leading authors of this report include staffers for activist groups like the Union of Concerned Scientists, Planet Forward, the Nature Conservancy, and Second Nature. Few objective climate experts will take this report seriously.

"Even those scientists who are not overtly affiliated with environmental activist groups were almost uniformly on the record as global warming alarmists before being chosen to write this report."

Mark Morano offered a round-up of reactions to the global warming report on his Climate Depot website.

Former Colorado State University climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke Sr.: "That much of the media accepted the NCA without questioning its findings and conclusions either indicates they are naïve or they have chosen to promote a particular agenda and this report fits their goal."

Dr. Judith Curry, chairwoman of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology: "The report effectively implies that there is no climate change other than what is caused by humans, and that extreme weather events are equivalent to climate change.

"Worse yet is the spin being put on this by the Obama administration."

Competitive Enterprise Institute Senior Fellow Marlo Lewis: The report is "designed to scare people and build political support for unpopular policies such as carbon taxes. Alarmists offer untrue, unrelenting doom and gloom."

Dr. Roy Spencer, principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville: Part of the report "is just simply made up. There is no fingerprint of human-caused versus naturally-caused climate change."

Weather Channel Co-founder John Coleman: The report is a "litany of doom," a "total distortion of the data and an agenda-driven, destructive episode of bad science gone berserk."

Climate Depot's Morano said: "By every measure, so-called extreme weather is showing no trend or declining trends on 50-100-year timescales. Droughts, floods, tornadoes, hurricanes are not increasing due to man-made global warming.

"Why does the report now call 'global warming' a new name, so-called 'climate disruption'? Simple answer: Due to earth's failure to warm — no global warming for nearly 18 years — another name was necessary to attempt to gin up fear.

"This report is predetermined science."

The gloom and doomers have been screaming about this for years.... in the 70's it was getting cold, Al Gore started the global warming, they added "man-made" to help people understand, the name was changed to "climate change" when enough people spoke up that CO2 is good. Now Obama wants us to call it Climate Disruption, or something like that.

If you believe that humans cause the climate on this planet to do anything, I challenge you to WALK THE WALK. Buy a bicycle, buy a canoe, sell all combustion engines you own. See if that helps.

But don't tell me what to do.

Look at AL Gore, he has houses all over, flies around in a jet. He says the oceans are rising, but he buys a house in California.

Here is a funding report that has 23% of 11.6 Billion dollars for 2014 alone being targeted not for generic climate science, but for global climate change science. I cant believe scientists are not eying that money when choosing which side of the argument to be researching. the whole thing is very scary to read.




Federal Climate Change Funding
from FY2008 to FY2014
Jane A. Leggett
Specialist in Energy and Environmental Policy
Richard K. Lattanzio
Analyst in Environmental Policy
Emily Bruner
Research Associate
September 13, 2013
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R43227
Federal Climate Change Funding from FY2008 to FY2014
Congressional Research Service
Summary
Direct federal funding to address global climate change totaled approximately $77 billion from
FY2008 through FY2013. The large majority—more than 75%—has funded technology
development and deployment, primarily through
the Department of Energy (DOE). More than
one-third of the identified funding was included
in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
of 2009 (P.L. 111-5). The President’s request for FY2014 contains $11.6 billion for federal
expenditures on programs. In the request, 23% would be for science, 68% for energy technology
development and deployment, 8% for international assistance, and 1% for adapting to climate
change. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) also reports that energy tax provisions
that may reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions would reduce tax revenues by $9.8 billion.
At least 18 federal agencies administer climate change-related activities, according to OMB.
Federal policy on climate change has been built largely from the “bottom up” from a variety of
existing programs and mandates, presidential initiatives, and congressionally directed activities;
funding has largely reflected departmental missions and support for each activity. Recently, the
Obama Administration, in the context of its Climate Action Plan announced in June 2013,
outlined an overall strategy with programs, resources, and tax incentives in a cross-agency, inter-
governmental initiative. The new Climate Acti
on Plan and a recent OMB report required by
Congress on federal funding for climate change activities outline four main components of the
strategy:
•
Climate and Global Change Research and Education
•
Reducing Emissions through Clean
Energy Investments and Standards
•
International Leadership
•
Climate Change Adaptation
Possible Funding-Related Issues for Congress
Some Members of Congress have expressed interest in how federal funding may reflect and
enable the Obama Administration’s overall strategy, and priorities within it, to address climate
change. Legislative issues regarding the federal f
unding of climate change activities may include
the following:
•
the sufficiency and alignment of federal resources to support a strategy to achieve
long-term climate change policy goals;
•
the demands of climate change adaptation programming for federal agencies,
their programs, and resources;
•
whether additional and predictable foreign aid resources may be provided to
support actions by low-income countries to mitigate greenhouse gases or adapt to
climate change;
•
possible legislative proposals to restructure or improve collaboration among
agencies regarding climate change activities;
•
the incorporation of recommendations from evaluations (whether internal or
external) to improve climate change programs; and
Federal Climate Change Funding from FY2008 to FY2014
Congressional Research Service
•
possible requirements for reporting to Congress of funding, budget justifications,
and programmatic progress that are adequate to support congressional decision-
making and oversight.
Scope and Purpose of This Report
This report summarizes direct federal funding identified as climate change-related from FY2008
enacted funding through FY2013 and the FY2014 request (as well as a less consistent series
beginning with FY2001). It reports the Administration’s estimates of tax revenues not received
due to energy tax provisions that may reduce GHG emissions. The report briefly identifies the
programs and funding levels,
as well as
some qualifications and observations on reporting of
federal funding. It further offers some issues that Members may wish to consider in deliberating
on U.S. climate change strategies.
Federal Climate Change Funding from FY2008 to FY2014
Congressional Research Service
Contents
Introducti
on ..................................................................................................................
.................... 1
Federal Funding for
Climate Change ............................................................................................
... 2
Climate Change
Initiativ
es ....................................................................................................
.... 2
The Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) .................................................................. 5
Clean Energy Technologies .....................................................................................................
.. 7
International
Assistance ......................................................................................................
....... 9
Climate Adaptation, Prepare
dness, and Resilience ........................................................................ 11
Principal Observations a
nd Legislative
Issues ............................................................................... 1
1
Figures
Figure 1. The President’s Request for Climate Change-Related Budget Authority
for FY2014 ....................................................................................................................
............... 3
Figure 2. Federal Budget Authority for Climate Change Programs,
FY2001 to the FY2014 Request, by Major Category of Program ................................................ 4
Ta b l e s
Table 1. Budget Authority for the Global
Change Research Program (USGCRP) .......................... 6
Table 2. Budget Authority for Clean Energy Technologies (Largely the Former Climate
Change Technology Program) ....................................................................................................
.. 8
Table 3. Budget Authority for the International Climate Change Assistance
(Also Referred to as the Global Clim
ate Change Initiative, or GCCI) ....................................... 10
Table 4. Federal Climate Change Programs: FY2001-FY2013 Enacted, and the
President’s FY2014 Request ..........................................................................................

?

malcolm2 wrote: If you believe that humans cause the climate on this planet to do anything, I challenge you to WALK THE WALK. Buy a bicycle, buy a canoe, sell all combustion engines you own. See if that helps. But don't tell me what to do.

I know that alcohol is "bad" for me but I still drink it. Smokers surely know that it is bad for them, but they still do it.

The fact that climate change is happening is completely independent of what we choose to do, if anything, about it. Al Gore can be a total hypocrite, but that doesn't mean he is wrong about climate change.

It is also worth noting that carbon emissions from internal combustion engines are a very small part of the problem overall. Energy at large (powering industry and homes) along with agriculture are the largest contributors to global carbon emissions, IIRC.

If all the scientific evidence indicates the reality of climate change and suggests major changes for the Earth's natural systems (both of which are true, in fact) then isn't government doing the responsible thing by making it a research priority? I know some of you don't "believe" in it, but the scientific community does and has adjusted its research agenda appropriately. That should come as no surprise, nor should it be "scary."

don't lump all the scientists into the "believe in this" bucket. There are some that do believe in it, but many more (not as vocal) that don't. Didn't a meteorologist from the weather channel get fired for speaking out on what HE believes in?

Like I said, believe what you what, just don't force me to believe what you believe.

I teach my kids to question everything. That is a great way to learn and develop your own beliefs.

Jamin....with the dire problem of climate change about to engulf the world as we know it, what are the top 5 things the average person can see around us on a daily basis that would lead one to know for certain that climate change is quite real, as you have said that it is many times, and is already causing dramatic negative effects?

Hey, I can't waterski behind a canoe. I will take my boat too!

I can't prove it, because it cannot be proven. I cannot post a single link because none exists. What does exist is a massive body of scientific evidence collected by tens of thousands of people over decades all over the globe that suggest with >95% confidence humans are warming the planet through the combustion of fossil fuels (aka carbon emissions). That is the state of the science. Yes, the planet is large, but not too large for temperature to be measured over most of the surface by things like satellites, let alone ground instruments. And, has also been previously covered in this thread, there are hundreds of proxy temperature methods going back hundreds of year from around the globe that all agree the planet is warming, and fast.

I don't really care if you doubt the science, but I do care if you doubt the fact that the science exists. Doubt the messenger if you want, but don't shoot them.

So go ahead and say, "Science says that climate change is happening, but I personally don't believe them." This may very well be true.

DO NOT SAY, "The science isn't settled/is uncertain/is part of some political agenda/is fraudulent/warming might in fact be good/etc." because none of that is true.

Hey Dave, how are you doing? That is a great question, and I am afraid that I don't know if such a simple answer exists because the effects of climate change are subtle on a year-to-year basis and are often overlooked or simply cannot be measured by the 5 senses available to us. However, looking at data over many decades they become apparent and include changes in the average ice off (earlier) and ice on (later), average bloom time of spring flowers (earlier), gradual slowing of average wind speeds (~15% IIRC during your lifetime), warmer nights (night warming is occurring at about double the rate of warming during the day), an increase in the average number of annual "extreme weather events" including large rain/snow events, an increase in the depth of permafrost (warmer topsoil), major decreases in the area and mass of many glaciers around the globe, the appearance of warm weather plant & animal species farther north, and (not temperature related, but a major looming issue) the increasing acidification of the ocean (CO2 dissolves in seawater to form carbonic acid that can then dissolve things like coral and other shelled organisms). These are all pulled out of my head rapidly since I don't have the time to get authoritative scientific references for all of them, but if you really doubt some of them let me know and I can try to pull something together.

I am sure that we could find temperature, ice on/off, and species records from your local area that would demonstrate some of the above patterns, but these are not things that you can see on a daily basis. In fact, the effects of climate change are probably too small to be noticed on a daily basis. Kind of like slow aging. I can't tell a 12 year bourbon from a 11.99 year bourbon. But I can tell a 12 year bourbon from un-aged whiskey!

Why do we need all of these scientists when we have the perfect indicator of global climate change right in David's back yard? Trees blooming "pretty much right on time" is proof enough for me.

Case closed!

Sea ice is tricky because extent and amount are not necessarily synonymous. One year ago folks were touting the increase in Arctic sea ice, conveniently neglecting to place it in a larger context. So while it was true that there was more sea ice, there was still less than average. So where does this leave us? You need to look at the overall trajectory of the system, not the particulars of any one year.

In case you missed the major environmental headline of the day, the glaciers of West Antarctica are now projected to completely collapse in the coming centuries as was first predicted in 1978, causing sea levels to rise around 3-4 feet in the same time period.

"Nothing can stop" retreat of West Antarctic glaciers BBC News

Two New Studies Show That The West Antarctic Ice Sheet Melt Is 'Unstoppable' And Collapse Is Inevitable Business Insider

Scientists Warn of Rising Oceans as Antarctic Ice Melts New York Times

There have been lots of studies of permafrost in the boreal regions of North America and Eurasia. Here is a link to just one (probably paywalled for you, sadly) publication in a major research journal that can point you in the right direction.

You may not notice it, but I am sure that the trees in your yard, on average, are budding earlier than they did when you were a child. And that winters, again on average, are warmer today than when you were a child. If I had more time I could dig up those data for you. As I said, these changes are imperceptible to us as people who have not been recording these data for decades on end, but there are people that have and they all show the same thing; the planet is hotter and the biology of plants and animals are responding accordingly.