Financing the fantasy 15

The immense and imminent threat of “global warming”, supposedly caused by humanity’s feckless ways, has been exposed as a fantasy.

So now the alarmists, who cannot admit defeat because they profit so hugely from their warmed-up panic, cry “climate change” instead.

Sure, the earth’s climate is changing. It’s forever changing. Who’s surprised? And who on earth wants to pay to know more about it?

Pay we do, however, and lavishly, whether we want to or not.

According to Art Horn, meteorologist, about $4 billion of tax-payers’ money will be spent this year – “wasted” as he bluntly and fairly puts it – on climate change research.

Here’s his account of where the money goes:

What can we cut out of the federal budget to make any kind of dent in this enormous pile of borrowed money? We could start with the vast sums of cash being wasted on climate change research.

This year, your government will spend in the neighborhood of $4 billion on global warming research, despite the fact that there has been no global warming since 1998, and despite all of the billions that have been spent so far yielding no conclusive evidence that using fossil fuels to make energy has any significant effect on Earth’s temperature.

The human component of carbon dioxide that is injected into the air each year is very small, on the order of 3%. Half the carbon dioxide emitted into the air by human activity each year is immediately absorbed into nature. Carbon dioxide is 8% of the greenhouse effect; water in the air is 90% of the greenhouse effect. By volume, carbon dioxide is currently at about 390 parts per million in the atmosphere, increasing at about 2 parts per million annually. In other words, carbon dioxide is increasing at a rate of .5% per year. Since human activity adds 3% of the carbon dioxide that gets into the air each year, the human component of the increase in carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year is 3 % of .5%, or just .015%.

Check the American Association for the Advancement of Science’s 2011 budget request, and go to chapter 15: Climate Change in the FY 2011 Budget. The numbers are staggering. In 2011, your government will spend $10.6 million a day to study, combat, and educate about climate change.

The big winner in the climate change money train is the National Science Foundation — they are requesting $1.616 billion. They want $766 million for the Science, Engineering and Education for Sustainability program, a 15.9% increase from their last budget. They also need another $370 million for the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), an increase of 16%. They say they also need another $480 million for Atmospheric Sciences, an increase of 8.1%, and Earth Sciences, up 8.7%.

Oh, and $955 million for the Geosciences Directorate, an increase of 7.4%.

The second largest request for money in 2011 comes from the Department of Energy. They say they need $627 million for things like funding for renewable energy. The request represents a whopping 37% increase from last year! …

Let’s get NASA in on the parade! For 2011, NASA wants $438 million to study climate change, an increase of 14%. NASA’s total Earth Sciences budget request is actually $1.8 billion. …

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is looking for $437 million for climate research. This is an increase of 21.4% from the previous budget. This includes funds for regional and national assessments of climate change, including ocean acidification. Once again, another meaty bag of money to tap into for researchers, who have nice cars and big houses and need to keep up the payments.

The Department of the Interior (DOI) is also interested in robbing the climate change vault — they say they need $244 million in 2011. Of this total, $171 million is for the Climate Change Adaptation initiative. …  Another $73 million is needed for the New Energy Frontier initiative. The goal of this program is to increase solar, wind, and geothermal energy capacity. …

Of course, there’s more. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) wants $169 million to reduce greenhouse gas emissions …

Is there any government agency that does not get some climate change funding? The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) wants $338 million for climate change programs. They want $159 million for climate change research, up a whopping 42%. They also want another $179 million for renewable energy, an increase of 41%! The USDA’s climate change efforts are supposed to help farm and land owners adapt to the impacts of climate change. Yes, really.

Redundancy on top of redundancy, piles of money on top of piles of money. All to study climate change, which, according to the theory, should be warming us rapidly, but, according to the data, has stopped.

Ours is a highly adaptable species. Human beings have survived climate changes for hundreds of thousands of years. Guess we could struggle on as usual without financing exorbitantly expensive investigations into a phenomenon we know perfectly well we cannot control.

  • Macnvettes

    I am all for clean air and water, but I do not ascribe to any belief that I should pay more for it. The free market will recycle more and create less waste because they see an economic benefit. They then pass that benefit on to me in the form of lower prices. So, why exactly is cap and trade a good idea then?

  • Frank

    I recently had an online discussion with a global warming believer. I sent him links to a couple of well written articles on the subject posted on this site. I ended my part of the discussion with the following:
    Is the planet warming? Yes it probably is. Has this happened in the past. Yes it definitely has. Is this warming caused by human activity? Probably not. Does human activity contribute to the warming? Maybe a little. In closing let me say that I am not in favor of raping the planet, polluting our oceans, or making the air unbreathable. I am in favor of calm reasoned solutions to “real” problems. Back in the late 1950’s and early 1960’s there was a big panic in the environazis community about global cooling and the coming ice age. One of their master plans to solve this problem was to sprinkle coal dust over both polar regions to help warm the earth. This lesson of a stupid decision arrived at in a panic mode was not lost on the wealthy and powerful in this world. Currently they are pushing the panic in order to increase their own wealth. Sorry, but I refuse to play in a rigged game.

  • Guest

    This is my first time commenting on this site (I only discovered it today. In addition, I would like to say that I am glad to have found it, as I agree with its principles.) However, as a rational person, I have to recognize that in any political website (especially one that clearly states it political allegiances, rational though they may be) some bias is inevitable. I will admit that I don’t have expertise in the field of climatology (or, being a first-year college student, in any field), nor have I looked at other articles on this website dealing with this particular issue, so my comment, at this point, is based solely on this article and the first one it links to. Anyway, it is appalling that the scientific community would falsify data to push a social agenda (or for any other reason). However, I am not convinced that that is what happened. I do not buy this conspiracy theory. This is clearly an extremely complex issue. It should be examined objectively and thoroughly before any definitive judgements are made. I believe that I (and every other person) have a right to know the truth behind this issue. I am looking forward to my own research into this. I believe strongly in science, above all else (and I am assuming that is the case for others who read this site and agree with its principles), and I would like to know what others think about this whole issue. Hopefully, with critical, objective analysis of both sides’ arguments, it can eventually be cleared up.

    • Jillian Becker

      Welcome, Guest, and thank you for your comment. We hope you will stay with us.
      We applaud your open-mindedness and intellectual curiosity, and agree heartily that a critical analytic approach to this (as any) disputed subject is the only right one.
      We admit that giving just the one reference to the Delingpole article as a reminder of Climategate was unserious, almost frivolous. In our own minds we have dealt often and thoroughly with this question, and for the moment forgot that a new reader would not know that.
      We have in fact taken this question seriously, if often also indignantly.
      If you were to put “global warming” into our search slot, you would find a host of articles (with many links). Not all that come up deal with the topic – some contain only passing references – but there have been at least 16 over the past year alone about Anthropogenic Global Warming, Climategate, and the political motives behind (what we do believe to be) the scam.
      In particular we’d draw your attention to “Corrupted scientists give asinine advice to world’s governments.”
      Of course you will be reading much more about it elsewhere. We hope that when you have come to your conclusions you will let us know what they are.

    • C. Gee

      A good gateway into the climate debate is through, which has recent articles both pro and con AGW. It also has a comprehensive list of linked websites, of which the best (anti-AGW) are Watts Up With That? and Climate Audit, whose authors exposed the “hockey stick” manipulations, and who are doing a very good job of exposing the whitewashes conducted by various investigating committees.

      You do not need to buy a “conspiracy theory”. A group of believers in AGW, tenured academics, are fully persuaded of the essential truth that human produced greenhouse gas is inducing irreversible climate warming destructive to the planet . They genuinely believe that the risk are so high of catastrophic damage, that stretching the essential truth to convey its urgency is their duty. Their scientific hypothesis becomes the basis for political dogma – a religion. Fanatics do not conspire: they spread the word. Manipulating data, disparaging those who disagree as apostates, impugning the motives and credentials of those who disagree, attempting to rig the ‘peer review’ system, refusing to give out information to those they fear will challenge their findings – these are not the actions of conspirators, but of the proselytizing devout. But using a religious analogy rather than a legal one to describe their behavior still leaves the actual behavior as deviating from scientific norms.

    • Jed

      I am the same person who posted this comment (Guest). The most valuable resource for my questions about climate change has been It is a reliable website, and I tend to trust it much more than blogs or even reliable news sites because of its scientific nature. I have come to the tentative conclusion that anthropogenic global warming is in fact a real thing. The fact that the vast majority of climatologists believe this is strong evidence for it, in my opinion ( Even if some climatologists are corrupt, that doesn’t necessarily mean a significant portion of them are. As for the “Climategate” controversy, I believe the content of the e-mails to be taken out of context. To me, this seems to be the most probable explanation. It seems to me as though people with pre-established skepticism of AGW would likely view these e-mails subjectively. Science is objective; and, therefore, scientists are less likely to be subjective. Having said that, I do believe that policy makers are dealing with this situation entirely ineffectively, just like every other situation they deal with. In addition, because of people like Al Gore (and entities like oil companies), this has become a political issue when it shouldn’t have. Even though I do support investing in research for alternative energy and other environmentally beneficial research, I do not at all agree with the hippies whose arguments are completely emotionally based and irrational. I don’t see why environmental policies must be inhibitory to the economy. Personally, it would be devastating for me if the oil industry suffered.

      Politicians and lobbyists are ultimately responsible for this becoming a politically (and emotionally) charged issue. My indignation lies with them. However, like I said, my conclusions thus far are tentative.

      • Jed

        Why does my comment say “Guest”? It should say my name (Jed).

        • Jillian Becker

          Jed, when the Disqus form comes up, write your name in the slot where it faintly says Guest.

        • Jed

          I did…

        • Jillian Becker

          Weird! It seems to work with everyone else. We can’t fathom why it’s not working for you. Anyway, please put your name into the comment itself.

      • Macnvettes

        “Climatologist” is the reason that they hold the views that they do. The same as a Vegan will tell you that eating meat is evil or will kill you. The fact of the matter is that 1998 was the hottest year on record in RECENT TIMES, meaning that the Earth has cooled in the 12+ years since then. Al Gore is responsible for making “global warming” into an industry with “An Inconvenient Truth”. His work has been thoroughly de-bunked: The authors of the hockey stick graph that is the basis for Al Gore’s hysteria have been caught manipulating their data to produce the hockey stick shape. Why don’t those who pushed it so hard recant their positions? MONEY, the same reason religions are still around.

        • Jed

          I don’t see what climatologists have to do with vegans, but thank you for directing me to that website. This continues to be an educational experience for me. I completely agree with what you’ve said about Al Gore; and even though I don’t know very much about climate science, I definitely know where I stand on the political side of this. I guess in the context of this article the science is somewhat irrelevant. What is important is how the governments and the UN are reacting to it (the science).

      • Macnvettes

        Here is another thing you won’t see in the “mainstream” news sites:
        Al Gore sued by over 30,000 climate change skeptics, that all happen to be scientists.

        • Jed

          Interesting. Thank you for attaching this video.


  • C. Gee

    Climate Change science is the way to the new synthesis of science, politics and economics. Within society’s reach, with enough funding, are : the philosopher’s stone: sustainability; the perpetual motion machine: renewable energy; and the elixir of youth: organic, local foods. No more need to work, create, or procreate. We need to replace all existing government agencies by one mega- agency: the Department of Transmutation.