CleanTechnica is the #1 cleantech-focused
website
 in the world. Subscribe today!


Climate Change GOP_climate_plan

Published on February 17th, 2011 | by Susan Kraemer

27

House GOP to Eliminate Climate Change Science Budget

Share on Google+Share on RedditShare on StumbleUponTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on FacebookPin on PinterestDigg thisShare on TumblrBuffer this pageEmail this to someone


Three members of the new House GOP have proposed eliminating NASA’s climate change research capability entirely. The targeted budget cuts would do more to accomplish the conservative goals of the party than actually cut the budget. The cost of climate change research is a subset of all earth science research which itself gets only 7.5% of NASA’s entire funding, which totals 0.6% of the US Federal budget.

By contrast, defense spending is 20% of the $2.9 trillion US Federal budget. Wars for oil maintain the US oil-dependency which keeps us hurtling towards certain climate catastrophe in this and future centuries for the next 100,000 years as carbon dioxide levels rise. (There are no plans in the GOP House budget to reduce any Defense spending).

Taxpayers will foot the hefty FEMA bills that will continue to mount over the next centuries as a result of climate change.

The House members are from two of the states that stand to require huge outlays from the rest of us as one erodes into the ocean while being more frequently battered by worse hurricane flooding (Florida), and the other (Utah) dries into permanent desert land, due to predicted climate changes.

Representatives Bill Posey (R-FL) and Sandy Adams (R-FL) and Rob Bishop (R-UT) are the three that have proposed entirely axing the funding for climate change research.

NASA is one of the three top climate change research organizations worldwide, and the ability of the world to gather data will be impacted.

But with no funding, future taxpayers will no longer have to hear from scientists like James Hansen, lead author in 2007 of a study which concluded: “If global emissions of carbon dioxide continue to rise at the rate of the past decade, this research shows that there will be disastrous effects, including increasingly rapid sea level rise, increased frequency of droughts and floods, and increased stress on wildlife and plants due to rapidly shifting climate zones.”

The total savings by eliminating any research on climate change? A subset of a measly $1.4 billion for all earth sciences that goes to study climate. US wars for oil cost $715 billion.

Susan Kraemer@Twitter






Share on Google+Share on RedditShare on StumbleUponTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on FacebookPin on PinterestDigg thisShare on TumblrBuffer this pageEmail this to someone


About the Author

writes at CleanTechnica, CSP-Today, PV-Insider , SmartGridUpdate, and GreenProphet. She has also been published at Ecoseed, NRDC OnEarth, MatterNetwork, Celsius, EnergyNow, and Scientific American. As a former serial entrepreneur in product design, Susan brings an innovator's perspective on inventing a carbon-constrained civilization: If necessity is the mother of invention, solving climate change is the mother of all necessities! As a lover of history and sci-fi, she enjoys chronicling the strange future we are creating in these interesting times.    Follow Susan on Twitter @dotcommodity.



  • Pingback: Climategate.nl» Blog Archive » Amerika grossiert in post-normale politiek

  • major

    Do it…we have wasted billions on this bogus science of global warming becuase of liars like Al Gore. Eventually I hope to see him convicted of fraud and wearing an orange jump suit the rest of his life. Even this punishment is way too goo for him.

    • Bill744

      What is bogus is making unsubstantiated allegations and ad hominem attacks.

      • InternationalGal

        Thanks Bill744 for making that clear about major’s comments. Usually ignorant people often have nothing intelligent to say, but complain about everything.

  • http://cleantechnica.com/author/susan Susan Kraemer

    Sorry, regular readers about the influx of irrationality.

    Another writer here privately pointed out to me, that we can see in WordPress that they all came here from one single website, climatedepot, funded by oil money from the Scaife Family Foundation.

  • Jim Foote

    If we ignore it, than it can’t hurt us; like crawling ubder the blankets as a child.

  • woodNfish

    Susan Kramer isn’t very bright. She thinks the only cost of this government funded fraud is the tax dollars pured into it while she ignores the trillions of dollars in cost by more expensive regulation, lost jobs and investment in the private sector.

    But then, economics never has been the strong pint of fascists.

    • http://cleantechnica.com/author/susan Susan Kraemer

      Mmm, from your spelling, I’d guess perhaps you’ve been imbibing some of the “strong pint of fascists.” Or perhaps gummint should have “pured” more money into your education.

      • http://wvoutpost.com WV Treehugger

        ROFL, OMG, awesome reply Susan.

    • Bill744

      Ad hominem attack… exposes the fact woodNfish has no point.

      This point of view ignores the cost of crop losses, floods, droughts, black lung, cancers, species loss, not to mention the cost of marrying our economic success to volatile, commodities (witness a new oil shock now, coal plants in New England closing due to a doubled price of coal, etc.) and the national security costs of maintaining access to imported oil.

  • Erik

    “But with no funding, future taxpayers will no longer have to hear from scientists like James Hansen”

    You do have freedom of speech in US right? – let him pay for himself – why should the public fund a political activist?

    • http://cleantechnica.com/author/susan Susan Kraemer

      @Eric: Riiiight, who needs gummint to pay for science! Climate scientists should hold bake sales to fund their work!

      If those top climate scientists like James Hansen want to do their climate science in the Arctic let them let them pay their own way!

      Seriously, Hansen is a scientist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen

      The political push-back against action in the face of the clear and present danger is what turned him – as a human being – into an activist, it’s the only moral response.

      If climate scientists’ news in the 80s and 90s had been met with the appropriate response by speeding the switch to clean energy, he would not be “an activist” but simply continuing to refine the science.

      • Sam NC

        He is not a scientists. He is at best a warmist or a CO2 misinformer who have no scientific sense of CO2 energy with 15 um IR radiation. He is in fact a trivialist who cannot appreciated the magnitudes of solar energy absorbed, reflected, evaporated, radiated, and the 15 um CO2 IR energy band which is trivial.

      • Bill744

        Susan is absolutely correct.
        If you read actual scientific literature, rather than politically motivated (and funded) think tank articles that masquerade as science (e.g. the Heartland Institute), the you would have to do all in your sphere of influence to reduce energy use and support the conversion to a sustainable energy economy. The amazing thing is that if you count all the costs, adopting sustainable, renewable, clean energy and energy efficiency costs less than a fossil fueled future.
        It seems that Sam has some reading to catch up on. The IR argument he obliquely references has been refuted many times. With all the noise out there, it is not hard to become an unwitting misinformer [sic] claiming that scientists are not scientific, pushed by greedy lobbyists who could care less about the science or old cold warriors who see red ghosts wherever they look.

  • Jay Walker

    Google “chemtrails 2010″ to see where this “Climate Change” money is going! Our skies are being sprayed daily in a crisscrossing manner with TOXIC CHEMICALS. That is why the trails left behind these planes are called “chemtrails” and “persistent contrails”. A contrails is a condensation trail that dissipates within 45 seconds. Look up in your skies and what do you see? Do you see X’s? Tic Tack Toe Patterns? Both of those patterns are against FAA regulations and, therefore, commercial planes are not allowed to cross each others path.

    I do not want to fund toxic chemicals that may be the culprit for the massive wildlife deaths into the millions last month. That also may be the reason for the deaths of the bees and millions of crickets. That may be the cause of the 10,000 cows that died in Vietnam three weeks ago.

    I also do not want to fund wars of aggression. I also do not want my taxes used to give other countries financial aid (payoff money). I do not want my taxes to bail out any major corporation or bank. I do not want my tax dollars to fund abortions. I do not want for my tax dollars paying large corporations not to produce or in any way favoring them.The reckless and special interest spending by Congress needs to stop. Both parties are responsible for this reckless and out of control spending.

    We are now being taxed almost 40% of what we earn! When are we going to rise up and say “Enough is Enough!” “You will no longer get any money from me if that is how you are going to do with it!”

  • http://tugpullpushstop.blogspot.com/ Oakden Wolf

    I wrote this:

    http://tugpullpushstop.blogspot.com/2011/02/this-is-why-they-dont-believe-in.html

    Full title is “This is why they don’t believe in climate change/global warming either”

    The thing is: it has been shown in psychological testing that when someone has strongly held beliefs, giving them clear incontrovertible evidence and well-reasoned arguments actually makes them hold those beliefs stronger, rather than changing their minds. So it’s hard to turn the tide of public numbskullnes, otherwise known as “opinion”, when that happens.

    So convincing the disbelievers that climate research at all levels is important, given the overtones of denierism in the GOP faithful (especially the ultra-faithful) is a virtually impossible job. They won’t listen, and if they do listen, they just reinforce their wrongheaded view even more.

    I wonder what would happen if a Cat 4 submerged 2/3 of Pinellas County on a direct strike path?

    • http://www.climatedepot.com Steve

      Right back at ya dumbass. Are you sure you wrote it all by yourself?

      • Bill744

        Steve has a point here with zero dimensions. Bravo.

  • Pingback: House GOP to Eliminate Climate Change Science Budget — Oil Rig Careers & News

  • Aaron

    This is completely obsurd. The GOP need to snap out of it. It is one thing to be skeptical about climate change and be conservative about economic policies regarding it. But it is another thing completely to try and ax one of the biggest research programs for climate change to find out more about it. For those GOP who want more conclusive evidence about AGW, getting rid of research like NASAs is NOT the way to go about it! I doubt this will go anywhere in congress, but it does show how ignorant some members of congress truly are.

    • Steve Koch

      Why was NASA ever in the climate business in the first place? It never made sense. Hansen has ruined the reputation of NASA and is much more of a political hacktivist than scientist. He clearly is not objective and will do anything to accomplish his political goals. Once the climate hacktivists are cleared out, NASA can begin to restore its reputation.

      Elections have consequences.

      The subsidies for windmills and solar power are going to disappear, too (one less source of corruption).

  • Pingback: Tweets that mention House GOP to Eliminate Climate Change Science Budget – CleanTechnica: Cleantech innovation news and views -- Topsy.com

  • Pinball Jim

    Evil and naive is a potent and dangerous combination that the right wing has now monopolized completely!! I have had it with the compassionless, selfish, anti-American morons in the Republican party. If you are a Republican and your not a millionaire, then you are a duped fool who should have bowed to natural selection ages ago. You have been fooled into arguing on behalf of the upper 1% and against your own interests YOU immeasurable IDIOTS!!!!. It is clear to the most casual, but focused, observer that there is, without question, a mankind aided climate catastrophe at our doorstep! You might as well argue against gravity!! If you can’t think for yourself, then stay out of the argument. The utter lack of intellect in the right wing is shocking and dismaying. You simply can’t fight utter stupidity and selfishness!! I truly would like to divide the country so that I can legitimately not count ANYONE on the right as a fellow American – you are not deserving at any level – you are not good Americans – your are the worst of humanity!!!!!!!

    • Sam

      Pinball Jim,

      You are an idiot. However, we do have one thing in common. Your idea about dividing the country between left and right is inviting. Maybe you should mention that to Al Gore. Hell, if he ran on that platform, I’d probably vote for him.

    • john

      And you people say we are hate full,and inconsiderate. You don’t look at much real science these days do you? If you did you would discard the junk from AL and James H. and look at the other 31,000 scientist that have more than countered, these few claims of doom, you worry about just relxa and have a good day anyway. When the cost of food for poor people around you gets so high they start to starve to death, we will wish we never heard of Al and the gang.we already see the starvation in foreign countrys,pratly caused by corn for ethanol programs that cost so much they cant even pay for them selves.
      More liberal sympathy and we will all be unable to live in doors and eat, much less be able to help anyone else.

      • http://www.realclimate.org Brian Dodge

        The OISM list of 31000 “scientists” only contains 39 real scientists who specialise in climate.

        The 31000 so called “scientists” by the OISM include physicians, electrical engineers, mechanical engineers, chemists, and a host of other broadly defined “scientists” who would have to know next to nothing about climatology.

        There were over 10.6 million science graduates as defined by the OISM since the 1970-71 school year, so the 31000 is a miniscule fraction even by their own broad definitions.

        Every scientific organization from the American Association of Petroleum Geologists to every one of the National Academies of Science worldwide recognizes the fact of AGW, and AGW is already causing problems; deadly heat waves – tens of thousands dead in France, Russia, Pakistan, China, and Brazil; rice crop declines and wheat crop failures in Russia, Australia, and China – did you notice the price of bread lately, or the news of food riots in India, Bangladesh, Egypt, or Mexico?

        ~60% of the US corn crop goes to animal feed – seen any starving cows rioting lately? 40% of the rest goes to industrial processing – do you think that people in Bangladesh are rioting because they’re not getting enough high fructose corn syrup in their diet? ~25% of the US corn crop is exported, and according to the USDA most of the corn that is exported is used for feed, some goes into industrial processing, and the remainder becomes food.

        Total corn exports only account for ~11% of total US$ agriculture exports, 50 million metric tons; Argentina, the second largest exporter, ships only 13 MmT, and plant their corn after the size of the U.S. crop is known. “Corn to ethanol causes starvation” is a right wing lie.

        • http://cleantechnica.com/author/susan Susan Kraemer

          Thank you so much, Brian. Gets tiring pointing this falsehood about the 31,000 scientists out, as it makes no impact on these paid fossil trolls, that all came here from one site yesterday, that is funded by oil money.

          Also the 31,000 includes dead heart surgeons and pediatric doctors too as I recall.

Back to Top ↑