Congress Says No To Free Climate Service

Thu, 2011-11-24 12:35Farron Cousins
Farron Cousins's picture

Congress Says No To Free Climate Service

This week, the Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives sent a strong message to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) – they’re not concerned about climate change. The NOAA had asked Congress for permission to create a new National Climate Service within the NOAA’s own offices, but Congress decided that the agency was just fine the way it is.

At a time when Congress is fiercely debating federal spending, it would seemingly make financial sense to deny additional funding to NOAA to create their new branch. But, in a rare occurrence on Capitol Hill, the new agency wouldn’t have cost anything, and NOAA didn’t ask for a single dime to fund their new venture, completely nullifying any financial argument against this common sense proposal.

The need for such an agency is completely justified, as The Washington Post points out:

Congress barred NOAA from launching what the agency bills as a “one-stop shop” for climate information.

Demand for such data is skyrocketing, NOAA administrator Jane Lubchenco told Congress earlier this year. Farmers are wondering when to plant. Urban planners want to know whether groundwater will stop flowing under subdivisions. Insurance companies need climate data to help them set rates.

So if it wasn’t about money, then what would stop congressional Republicans from giving the OK to the organization? To put it bluntly, they don’t want scientists 'scaring' people with their creepy climate change mumbo jumbo.

Again from The Washington Post:

“Our hesitation,” Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.) told Lubchenco at a hearing in June, “is that the climate services could become little propaganda sources instead of a science source.”

At the same hearing, a key opponent to the service, Rep. Ralph M. Hall (R-Tex.), said he recognized that “certain climate services can provide value.” But he fretted that the reorganization would “severely harm vital research at NOAA.”

In September, Hall’s tone turned decidedly less friendly. As chair of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, he launched an investigation of NOAA. Hall claimed the agency was operating “a shadow climate service operation” without congressional approval.

These statements should come as no surprise. Looking at the money that got these two men elected, the Center for Responsive Politics database says that Rep. Hall has received $648,645 from electric utilities and another $571,334 from oil and gas industries over the course of his career, while Rep. Harris has been the recipient of more than $62,000 from the oil and gas industries during his short, 3-year stint as a federally-elected politician. The Washington Post did not comment on the two men’s dirty energy industry campaign money.

What is ironic about the agency’s request, and the Republican disapproval, is that the idea was originally floated many years ago by former President George W. Bush, a man who was no stranger to the oil business. It begs the question as to why an oil-friendly Republican idea was voted down by oil-friendly Republicans this week.

NOAA will continue to compile climate data, but will be forced to spread the data out among its various branches, without a clear and concise methodology for interested parties to seek out this information.

Comments

Such is the current state of affairs that the word climate is enough to make people nervous and worry about ulterior motives. 

I know enough to be alarmed.

Maybe most are not so aware.

I think this move simply reflects the reality that climate change is not a big issue and it does not make sense to realign a departments focus on an issue that is not important.

Andy Harrises comment from the article above is also valid.

Our hesitation,” Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.) told Lubchenco at a hearing in June, “is that the climate services could become little propaganda sources instead of a science source.”
  

Especially when you consider the comment revealed in climate gate 2.0.

From the Climategate 2.0 collection, IPCC-er Peter Thorne shows he understands the basic problem of alarmism:

I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.

 

We certainly do not need anymore politicization of the science!

 

 


 

“I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.”

Exactly the problem. Some scientists, via the MSM and alarmist blogs, have overstated the threat of AGW to the point where people just don’t believe it is that serious anymore. All one has to do is look out the window. We have had less than 1deg C of warming in the last 30 years, sea level rise is not happening at anywere near the rate predicted and people are asking “Where’s the beef?”.

As the mantra being preached by the overzealous CAGW preachers gets even more dire, people are just not listening anymore. And the media and politicians are tuned to the people, therefore the whole idea of global warming is being ignored.

Here’s 5 degrees for you;  (I dunno about you, but I think that this may just be why the ice is melting in the arctic?  What do you think?)

http://www.ec.gc.ca/adsc-cmda/default.asp?lang=En&n=77842065-1

Scientists have been asking for a nice steady calm orderly reduction of Green House gases from the get go.

Dude, go look Nasa Goddard Institute’s instumental temperature record;

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png

The global average temparature since 1940 has not risen more than .6 deg C. ok? Mann’s discredited hockey schtick shows the same. 

And you need look no further than Desmog or Climate Progress websites for all the latest wailing regarding CAGW. Hansen’s “Game over for the climate” is right up there with the best quotes from this year alone.

My point in all this is what I said above; people are just not listening anymore. They just don’t trust what they are hearing because all the predictions of the last 20 or so years have NOT happened.

Don’t waste your time Chas. I believe your comment here is falling on deaf ears and will just get voted down (or deleted) anyway.

There’s is clearly a disconnect for the people that believe all the catastrophic warnings and the reality of what the general public believes. IMO, as long as our government isn’t being tricked into wasting trillions of dollars on these predictions, all is not lost.

“Don’t waste your time Chas.”

Good call Lara.

“and will just get voted down”

Gee, I wonder how climate realist comments get voted down?

There’s is clearly a disconnect for the people that believe all the catastrophic warnings”

Likewise with people that buy, house, car or contents insurance. Why bother taking prudent precautions? Chances are, it will never happen to you.

 

… but you’re the first climate change denier who’s used a long time line graph.  In debunking blogsphere crap for over a year, you are the first.

Hmm… Who discredited what, where and how?  What is the name of the scientific paper and author to which you are refering?  Without citations I cannot understand what you are talking about.

Here’s an evaluation of Hansen’s 1988 prediction based on CO2 in the atmosphere.  Looks like we’re running Hansen’s Scenario C.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Hansen-1988-prediction.htm

Conclusion… Hansen’s prediction is accurate.  Is there anything I’m missing?

Even your warmist blog link has to concede that Hansen has overestimated the sensitivity. We are emitting between scenario a and B but not even getting the warming of scenario C.

The warming in Global warming just has not come to pass. If you get this analysis done on any other blog it completely debunks Hansen.


 

“The warming in Global warming just has not come to pass.”

Your lie debunked the first time around, doesn’t somehow become the truth the next time you say it.

 

You can bob an weave on this point but it is accepted within climate science that there has not been any statistically signifigant warming in a very long time. Phil Jones as well as everyone else has confirmed it, it’s a wonder why anyone would attempt to deny this scientific fact.

http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c01538f6ce0f7970b-pi

If you examine the above link you will see that:

 The actual temperatures (bright green curve for UAH-NASA satellite and bright blue curve for HadCRUT) shown in this chart are compared to the various IPCC scenarios of CO2 emissions. The orange curve (‘commitment’) was the IPCC climate model temperature scenario that assumed CO2 emissions would “stabalise” at levels for year 2000. The darker blue, green and red curves represent different growth scenarios of “business as usual” CO2 emissions.

As is clear in the chart, global temperatures are significantly below even the  the IPCC scenario of stabilized (orange curve) CO2 emissions. This is a spectacular failure, confirming that increasing CO2 emissions are not driving temperatures up. Clearly the power of c02 as a climate forcing agent has been overstated. The mounting evidence of a lack of warming is now starting to find its way into the scientific literature. 

 

“You can bob an weave on this point but it is accepted within climate science that there has not been any statistically signifigant warming in a very long time.”

Repetition of your lie, doesn’t somehow make it the truth.

“http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c01538f6ce0f7970b-pi

If you examine the above link you will see that:”

You again link to the nameless blog, hosted by the nameless person with average photoshop skills & you are easily duped again.

Did you think we had forgotten your last attempt at this?

http://www.desmogblog.com/monckton-reaches-new-heights-anti-environmentalism#comment-724212

 

No one disputes this fact except you. From Phil Jones to Marc Morano everyone agrees that there has not been any statistically signifigant warming. Time to wake up and decide if this is a matter of faith or fact for you.

“No one disputes this fact except you. From Phil Jones”

Ralph. This is a circular argument. I included the link to our previous discussion on this. It was shown several times, that you have a comprehension problem.

Errr & Marc Morano? He works for a Conservative think tank. Why would his view on this surprise you? It’s not exactly a revelation.

http://www.friendsofscience.org/

Phil;

If you go to this webpage they have a temperature graph on the bottom left. It clearly shows the absence of warming which is not what the models predicted. Read some more as this site has been set up by a band of scientists fighting for truth and justice with the climate arena.

 

“http://www.friendsofscience.org/”

Is there any sites that you reference that are not fossil fuel lobbyist sites, republican affiliated sites, or photoshopped sites?

“It clearly shows the absence of warming which is not what the models predicted.”

Great! Then you can get them to call all the major institutes that disagree with FOS & ask them update their websites accordingly. Let me know how you go.

 

These guys are so above board that they got caught pretending to be a charity.

http://www.canada.com/technology/University+Talisman+distance+themselves+from+Friends+Science/5414844/story.html

Check out all that oil money from Talisman Energy.

Yeah…   Sign me up with them and a few drug lords.  (Drug Lords are better at laundering money.) Founded by… a political science professor.  Hmm… Sounds scientific.  Must be legit science…  They have Tim Ball in their stable… hmm.. and he tries to use polar bear populations as temperature proxies.. Hmm..

This kind of low brow shenanigan is precisely why I’m here.  Why you consider criminal activity from your sources acceptable, is utterly beyond me.

Better yet… fame and fortune to a published article.

In the mean time… Here’s Hansen’s predictions ABC being compared to Hadcrut and Global GIS. Looks accurate to me.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Hansen-1988-prediction-intermediate.htm

So who’s your super secret blogger who knows everything.  I really want to know.

YOu guys are hilarious. I suppose to you this is akin to arguing with a catholic about the virgin birth, but numbers do not lie like cliamte scientists.

Even the warmist blog link you posted Oilman closes with this statement.

The appropriate conclusion to draw from these results is not simply that the projections were wrong.

Which means firstly Hansen projections we’re wrong! As you can clearly see from the charts on skeptical science. The warming simply has not come to pass. With a 40% increase in c02 we see no statistically signifigant increase in temperature.

Consider yourselves debunked.

 

“Which means firstly Hansen projections we’re wrong!”

No, it just means you have an ongoing comprehension problem. If you had completed the paragrapgh, you would see:

“The appropriate conclusion to draw from these results is not simply that the projections were wrong.  The correct conclusion is that Hansen’s study is another piece of evidence that climate sensitivity is in the  IPCC stated range of 2-4.5°C for 2xCO2.”

“Consider yourselves debunked.”

Consider yourself clueless.

 

“Some scientists, via the MSM and alarmist blogs, have overstated the threat of AGW to the point where people just don’t believe it is that serious anymore.”

Conversely, others have been saying that there is no warming & there will be only good consequences from having more CO2. This 2nd very small, but vociferous group has not a single major scientific institution on the planet that backs them.

“All one has to do is look out the window.”

Your preferred method of gathering global empirical evidence?

“As the mantra being preached by the overzealous CAGW preachers gets even more dire, people are just not listening anymore.”

Great! So your services are no longer needed? If no one is listening, then why are you here? They are not listening….sooo, you come here to tell us they are not listening? 

 

on rainfall ought to be an eye-opener given the precipitation events of the past two years.

Maybe only those who have suffered through a flood actually believe in them?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/2010-2011-Earths-most-extreme-weather-since-1816.html

 

and pound foolish?

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

[x]

CLEAN COAL, it's the two-word catch phrase the coal industry has used for years as it tries to convince the world its climate changing energy source has a future.

While the term “clean coal” is rightly met with ridicule and derision by many, up until this week it has been allowed to stand — at least in the world of advertising.

But now the UK’s advertising authorities have told Peabody Energy that it can no longer freely dangle its “clean coal...

read more