Are the Gloves Off Yet?

| March 20, 2017

From Wattsupwiththat: Bodaprez’s climate ‘funding’ $77 billion(!!) stash has been found and is going to be gutted.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/03/16/obamas-77-billion-climate-funds-stash-found-will-be-gutted/

It’s been hidden by not being specifically labeled ‘climate change’ or ‘climate related’ and buried in programs that have nothing to do with the climate or even with the weather.

“In some cases, the idea was to make climate programs hard for Republicans in Congress to even find.” – WUWT article. That sentence alone should clue even a blunt instrument (like someone we know) into the deceptions practiced for eight long years by the previous administration.

It’s far past time it was uncovered and the misuse of tax money brought to light. That should make us all feel a bit better, but there is another side to this climate fracas going on.

Pres. Trump released a proposed budget on Thursday last week. We already know that he plans to increase defense spending, and has indicated that he can save $100 billion by cutting nonsensical (my term) federal spending on ‘climate change’, some of which is buried in programs that, as I said, have nothing to do with ‘climate’.

Since the WUWT article is a summary, I suggest that you click on the link to the original article from Bloomberg News, and don’t get your undies in a wad over it, because it is not ‘managed’ by Mikey B. He merely owns it.

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-03-15/cutting-climate-spending-made-harder-by-obama-s-budget-tactics

What you will see in the original article is links to other resources, including the expansion of existing programs to include ‘climate change’ in their curricula.

When something like this hidden deep pocket is viewed as a ‘gravy train’, which it is, it becomes another drain down which your tax dollars flow without anyone checking on them.

In this morning’s  paper there was a whine about losing the Great Lakes cleanup funding money, but the author of that article included the observation that such funding has been dwindling for some time now. Frankly, after watching the videos of carp shooting last week, I think it should be open carp season all year, just to clean out that pest. Bring some sturgeon into it, too. They’ll eat anything.

I have said this before and will continue to do so: I have no issues with good meteorological research. It is vital to basic safety to be able to accurately predict severe weather such as blizzards, thunderstorms, hurricanes and tornadoes, flooding, short-term and long-term drought.  If the Army Corps of Engineers requires funding to do a better job of preventing flood damage from events like 2005’s Hurricane Katrina, as the linked article suggests, that makes sense, but it should not be coming from a hidden, mislabeled fund.

The 1993 flooding of the Mississippi River caused between $15 billion and $20 billion in damages because the water volume flowing south was severely underestimated, despite the Army Corps of Engineers opening a lock at the northern end of the flow. Ole Man River, as I have said before, drains every waterway from North Dakota and Minnesota to the west and Pennsylvania, Ohio and Indiana to the east, and anything else that empties into it on its way south to the Gulf of Mexico.

This problem has to do with correctly analyzing and predicting the rain volume in the water column of storms that produce floods like that, as well as a hurricane’s storm surge itself. The storm surge for the 2005 Katrina prediction was inaccurate.  The 1993 Mississippi River flow volume was severely underestimated, with the result that levees and dikes along the river were overwhelmed and/or broken by the flood.  I won’t bring up Hurricane Sandy, but it was a disaster that need not have happened.

Weather forecasting is NOT, and never has been in any way, related to climate changes. We desperately need better meteorology. There is no reason to cut that kind of funding.

Here is an example: in 2006, there was a heat wave and a drought in the corn belt. It was not predicted. The rains that would normally water alfalfa, corn, soybean and wheat fields went into the Dakotas, with a rain volume so heavy that it revived dormant anthrax spores in the soil, infecting cattle that had not been inoculated because anthrax was no longer a threat.  The anthrax organism can lie dormant for centuries and will revive under the right conditions, which is exactly what happened.

In another example, last Monday, March 13, the forecast for snow in my general area was 2 to 6 inches. The actual amount that I measured at the end of the storm was 11 inches. That’s quite a difference. A much higher volume of snow went far to the south of me, as far south as 80 miles, because the forecasters had failed to take into account atmospheric humidity levels (as high as 92%), which feed the snow column along with open water in Lake Michigan.

The inaccuracy of that snow volume prediction was not just for my area. It was quite widespread and included two states, not just a few counties. Fortunately, it melted quickly. While we’ve had a warm winter, we have not once lacked precipitation the entire time. It is raining lightly as I write this.

Here’s a prediction for anyone who is interested, since it comes from two different people: the next two winters will be prolonged, with a high volume of precipitation (snow or rain, depending on where you are). That’s 2017-2018 and 2018-2019.  Prolonged means starting early and ending later than usual. Not my prediction, just passing it on. I’d say make sure there’s firewood if you need it, and plenty of staples in the pantry.  And ice cream. And pizza.

Category: Taxes

80 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
ex-OS2

“and plenty of staples in the pantry. And ice cream. And pizza.”

No mention of popcorn? WTF?

ex-OS2

My feelings are hurt that popcorn was not specifically mentioned in the article.

🙂

Fjardeson

No whiskey?

The Stranger

I keep a bottle of whisky handy in case I see a snake…which I also keep handy!

Blaster

I was thinking the same thing. Enough of the right whiskey and you won’t care about the ice cream or pizza.

ex-OS2

Popcorn!!

Blaster

True Dat.

But I like hard copies of certain items in case of electrical outages and no way to recharge or limited electricity. If electricity is limited, I have to save that for the DVD player and TV.

Blaster

My thoughts exactly!

2banana

I dream of the day obama and Hillary go to prison for treason.

Airdale (AW) USN ret.

Why?? Your boy is doing a great job doing just that!

2/17 Air Cav

I burn hundreds of pounds of charcoal every year. I use a gas-powered mower and week whacker. One of my vehicles gets about 8 miles to the gallon. Batteries? Sure I do my part. I throw them in the black plastic bags. I also dump electronics in them, knowing this is illegal. What else? Um…. oil filters. Same thing. Black trash bag. I used to open air burn all kinds of toxic stuff but I found the dump to be less laborious. So, I do my part for climate change. No question.

26Limabeans

Wednesday is dump day here.
Cardboard boxes get recycled by filling them
with all kinds of stuff like batteries, car parts and anything else I can hide. It all goes into green contractors bags and tossed into the pit. I drive away happy. No guilt.
Somebody gonna profit from it.

MSG Eric

Funny thing, where I’m at there is a recycling truck and a garbage truck that comes by at the same time every Tuesday. I have one recycle bin I put aluminum cans and plastic bottles in. My Hipster neighbors separate out everything into three different bins thinking they are doing their part. They’ve been doing that for 5 years.

What I haven’t told them, but I will after I move is, the recycle truck throws all three of their recycle bins into the same place and sort them at the recycling facility.

Though the same hipsters have like 4 cars and they aren’t Priuses, curiously enough.

George V

” I use a gas-powered mower and week whacker…”
I had a week whacker, then I retired so the job no longer whacked my week.

Blaster

Agreed. I want everyone to know I was here, and what better way, then to leave a huge carbon footprint.

The Other Whitey

Some will claim that this was “justified” somehow to insure it would’nt get cut. At the risk of invoking Godwin’s Law, suffice it to say that a government of, by, and for the people is not one that pushes its agenda through lies and subterfuge. The previous administration was one of, if not THE, least transparent in living memory. Nixon wore his proverbial heart on his sleeve by comparison.

MSG Eric

And I doubt he ever imagined they’d be authorized with as much power as they have in recent years as well.

Just the same as some other bureaucracies, they get a little sniff of power and they get out of control.

MSG Eric

When even the Washington Post is saying you’re the least transparent, you probably are.

There was a similar article on the WSJ site, but behind a subscribe wall.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/obama-promised-transparency-but-his-administration-is-one-of-the-most-secretive/2016/05/24/5a46caba-21c1-11e6-9e7f-57890b612299_story.html?utm_term=.f5016471518e

Wilted Willy

Sex is just like a snow storm, you never know how many inches you will get, or how long it will last?

Blaster

I have 3 young boys. Truer words have never been spoken.

MSG Eric

Well, at least you aren’t outnumbered at home like a certain somebody will be in a few months….

Blaster

Well, there are 4 males in the house but my wife’s vote somehow always counts as 5. So we kind are outnumbered .

Twist

Before my son was born it was my wife, 5 girls, and me. I told my wife that if the baby ended up being a girl that I don’t care if we got so much as a gold fish it would be male.

MSG Eric

As drunk as I’ve been at times, I luckily have never had to worry about getting any inches and that was confirmed by waking up in the morning each time laying next to a zero inches witness to the act.

AW1Ed

The gloves came off when all the progtards began droning “Settled Science.” There is no settled science, there are only theories and hypotheses, subject to change with better data.

LC

Well, without going too far into the rabbit hole of semantics, it’s true that nothing is ever fully ‘settled’ (because new data could change things), but that doesn’t mean that certain ideas aren’t simply accepted as true until opposing data comes in. The simplest example is gravity. I think we’re all pretty settled on the the notion that gravity exists, and we understand it pretty well – in part because it’s pretty simple in how it manifests itself. We still only have theories on how it works, but the basic mechanisms and effects are ‘settled’ except for really weird edge cases. Surely we can agree on that? Climate change also exists – and, since I’m not stipulating it’s man-made or natural, or whether it’s directional or cyclic we can surely also agree on that too, right? The tricky thing is that now we’ve gone from a simple example -gravity being a function of mass and distance- to an incredibly complex one. I mean, shit, even the computer models used to study climate use thousands and thousands of variables, not just the two we had with gravity. And that’s hardly enough to accurately represent the physical phenomena we understand, let alone ones we don’t. Approximations are made, and constantly improved upon, to try to tease out some basic relationships amongst the many, many things factoring into whatever is changing the climate. And so underpaid nerds sit around all day and night and look at the data, test ideas, and try to understand a tiny portion of the rules that govern this incredibly complex system. And while we’re still pretty far from having a thorough knowledge of the entire cycle of things in infinite detail, a few trends do keep popping up – such as the correlation of CO2 on average global temperatures. And then scientists look into the life-cycle of CO2 and how it might bring about these changes and find all sorts of interesting stuff. … The point is, climate change is indisputably settled. The connection between CO2 levels and global temperatures is widely accepted to the point of being… Read more »

ex-OS2

You forgot to mention popcorn LC.

Wilted Willy

If you stop and think about it, isn’t CO2 food for the trees so that they may produce oxygen for us to breathe? So that’s a good thing, right??

MSG Eric

Its because we didn’t know it, but dinosaurs were driving around in SUVs with 4MPG and leaving the air conditioning on in their caves all the time.

That’s why the greenhouse effect happened, not because of a meteor hitting the earth.

We didn’t know because their SUVs all corroded into dust in those millions of years.

UpNorth

“We didn’t know because their SUVs all corroded into dust in those millions of years”. They all drove Fords?
I keed, I keed. And, I drive a Ford.

Thunderstixx

It was them damn Tyrannosaurus Rex’s.
They all drove those big things just so they could intimidate all the peace loving plant eater vegebtablearians…
Seriously, the peaceful Dino’s just stood around munching plants, eating weed staying stoned and just loving life…
And there they came to ruin a good thing…

AW1Ed

The terms are pretty specific.

Scientific theory

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.

Hypothesis

A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses on previous observations that cannot satisfactorily be explained with the available scientific theories.

MSG Eric

Double Boom.

MSG Eric

“Settled Science” is just a popular celebrity talking point, along with other liberal climate change fans.

Settled Science is the same as “status quo” and is a load of bullshit because far too often they find that with future technology and study, science changes.

Throughout history “Scientists” have determined what is “Settled” even to the point of defaming other scientists with alternate theories. Even Stephen Hawking was heckled and walked out on during his first dissertation discussion by high-minded douchebags who thought they were smarter because of “settled science”. Then a few years later, oh snap!, he’s a celebrated genius who has outstanding ideas and really knows what he’s talking about. Go figure.

At the least, watching channels like the science channel I see modern science types actually saying on camera “we don’t know and we keep finding out how much we really don’t know” as opposed to saying, “we know because we’re scientists and smarter than you!”

To use a modern simile, Scientist need to be more like Leonard Hoffsteder and less like Sheldon Cooper and not just because he’s banging a hot blonde. (Big Bang Theory sitcom)

timactual

If the science is settled, why do we need to fund more climate research?

MSG Eric

Boom.

Eden

Climate change “science” fails to take into account (and often actively hides) two pertinent facts:

1. Instruments used to measure temperature and other elements were not nearly as precise 50, 100, or more years ago as they are now. The “climate change” differential is smaller than the margin of error for those older instruments.

2. Climate is cyclical. Some years are warmer than others. Some years are wetter than others. However, the temperatures, precipitation, etc. stay within certain ranges that they almost never exceed. It is because of this cyclical nature of climate that the so-called “scientists” (i.e. those whose political agenda drives their “research”) can’t decide whether we’re experiencing “global warming”, “global cooling”, or something else.

timactual

Don’t forget that much of the older climate data and from areas that were never measured by instruments comes from “dendroclimatology”. Those tree rings seem to be accurate to at least a tenth of a degree.

I also doubt that the temp. measurements taken constitute a statistically valid sample.

MSG Eric

I learned about the tree rings in one of my college classes. Fascinating how much they could actually show and how accurate they were throughout the years.

HMC Ret

PH: Your otherwise excellent article fails, again, to mention the components for making a good Friday sammich. Just sayin’.

AW1Ed

And she’s late, too, it being Monday and all.

*ducks-and-runs*

Commissar

This was not a damn conspiracy. Climate is a pervasive thing. It surrounds everything. Thus literally thousands of agencies and organizations in the government have an impact on climate issues.

So the money went where it needed to go.

And 77 billion is chump change compared to the ACTUAL costs of climate change.

Seriously, your anti-climate rhetoric is some of the dumbest nonsense on any issue anywhere on the internet.

Talk about out of touch nitwit bullshit.

I knew Trump would seriously harm the right and the GoP leading to a progressive backlash that will change the course of this nation. And the constant climate denial idiocy is one of the biggest catalysts that will piss of RATIONAL, and INFORMED Americans.

Fortunately, Mattis knows climate change is real, is impacted by human action, and is a national security threat. So at least we will not be caught flat footed or on our asses when the consequences of right wing stupidity on the issue finally catches up to us.

Calling it “right wing” is not even fair to conservatives. Because it is not conservative to fuck over the environment. Hell, the EPA was a Nixon initiative.

Climate denial is mindless fuckwittery among the most sheepminded dipshits in America. It is not “conservative”, it is kakistocratic nonsense.

Roh-Dog

Man, I really hate you.
Do you have any idea how much energy it would take to raise the temperature of the oceans?
Do you have any idea how much CO2 human activity has caused?
Do you even scientific method bro?
“Human-driven climate change” at best is an exercise in hypothetical masturbation.

Ret_25X

No, no, and no, because they don’t study anything like that in the socialist studies program in universities.

They just memorize the dialectic.

HMCS(FMF) ret

BUT.. BUT… he has EMPIRIC DATA to back up his claims!!!

/sarc off

A Proud Infidel®™

HEY Babbles McButthead, I still remember the Eco-doomsday propaganda peddled to me when I was in college in the late eighties, we were being told that at leas fifty percent of the human race was goins to be dead by 2000 due to acid rain, the hole in the ozone layer, deforestation,… Nowadays the air is cleaner in the USA where we now have more forested acreage than we did in the 1920s! The polar ice caps are growing as well, and isn’t that drought over with there in CA? BTW, I used to make my living as a HAZMAT Contractor where I really saw just how full of shit you and your fellow tree-hugging flower monkeys really are. How about the climate changes before humankind even existed, o shit-for-brained flower monkey?

rgr769

Don’t forget the major news mag stories in the 80’s that predicted we were on the verge of a new ice age and that everyone in the northern hemisphere was going to freeze death in the late 90’s. Someone needs to send that issue of Time or Newsweek to Berzerkeley Boi.

OldManchu

And yet you still sit here using electricity. Why don’t you lead by example, hold your breath for five minutes, and reduce your CO2 output and carbon footprint like you preach. Hippocrite.

11b-mailclerk

Zampolit,

You just cannot comport yourself in a civilized manner. When you are confronted with your counterproductive juvinile shitfits, you simply double down.

“Science” doesn’t fudge the numbers.

“Science” doesn’t hide raw data.

Proggies do.

CO2 levels demonstrably and documentably -lag- temperature changes. Simple mechanism explains: oceans are water, and absorb co2. Heat them up and they outgas. Cool them and they suck it up.

Cheap demo: two bottles of pop. One rather warm. One just above freezing. Which one fizzes more?

Duh.

Warming oceans takes time.

Sudden changes to climate screws up ocean currents, which stirs the deep layers of low gas water, now free to absorb co2

-lag- cant be -cause-.

Now that big fusion ball up there is a direct, measurable cause.

Sulfur dioxide and methane are gigantic contributors to climate, as is water vapor, vastly more impactful than CO2. But weirdly, they are seldom mentioned.

Note: flat earth was “widely accepted”. Your fellow dems “widely accepted” your claimed natural state of slavery for dark-skinned folks.

Both were way wrong.

Like proggies are way wrong. You idiots killed ove one hundred million people with collectivism, but that remins your default answer, widely rejected by the sane, so you gin up crisis after crisis to demand we give it one more go.

Carbon tax was a dead giveaway. Total scam, and not going to do a damn thing to impact climate. Just another Tranzi con game.

Your hysterical tantrums convince no one. You serve a a court buffoon here.

You fail to persuade. You utterly fail to advocate.

Hysteria is not science, nor is it entertaining.

O-4E

I don’t think any rational person of any political leaning denies that climate can and does change over the course of history.

What is disagreed upon are the causes and more importantly what should be done, if anything, to curb that change.

Oh. And the data from studies and how it is manipulated.

As a supposed Intel Officer you should be well aware that data can be manipulated to support your agenda.

The major issue here is what is the agenda?

Kinda old ET1

Lars some facts that I as a so called “denier” believe:

The earths climate is always in a state of flux, always has been, always will be.

Since the late 18th century the earths average temperature has fluctuated but has gradually increased.

Human burning of fossil fuels has released co2, which has contributed to the atmospheric increase of same.

Co2 is a greenhouse gas and as such will be a forcing for warming.

Lots of good science there huh?

What I’m sceptical of is that the current climate change is entirely man made and that it is in any way catastrophic.

And there is PLENTY of good hard science that supports those ideas.

*Ex-PH2, good to see another reader of WUWT on here.

SFC D

“So the money went where it needed to go.”

Negative, Commissar. The science went where the money was.

O-4E

Great write up PH2

Another topic I like is the whole Meals on Wheels (MOW) issue

So. MOW says they serve 500,000 Veterans

They also claim to serve 2.4 million seniors

So that means that nearly 21% of their clients are Veterans. Despite Veterans making up roughly 7% of the population

If those numbers are true that’s a major cause of concern to me.

But. I wondered how that data, specifically Veteran status, is collected

In the last 4 days I’ve perused MOW applications for 23 different areas. None of them ask if you’re a Vet or not.

It would be great if they did. That info could be passed on to the VA and other service organizations that provide assistance to low income senior Vets

But they don’t. Which leads me to question how the 500K number is derived

O-4E

MOW is a great program. I’m obviously not questioning that. As you point out it’s not so much the meal a lot of times as it is the company and personal contact it provides.

What I question (as I always do when someone attaches “Veteran” to a cause) is the 500K number and how it was derived.

I’ve sent an email to MOW national and asked them to provide that info to me.

I’ll let everyone know when I get a response.

To me we have a serious issue if nearly a quarter of MOW recipients are Vets

Kinda old ET1

MOW, is a fantastic program.
My 97 yo grandfather receives them, yet he does not rely on them since he is neither poor or housebound. (My cousin recently moved in with him to help out, but he still drives and twice a week volunteers at the local children’s hospital, and he is a WW2 vet)

CB Senior

My foundation of thought for alternative energy sources is solely for getting rid of oil and it’s price variables and Foreign reliance. Unfortunately most of the leading alternative energy companies have very familiar sounding names. BP, Exxon/Mobile ect.

Settled Science of CO2.? Levels of CO2 were calculated by using ice cores from around the world. Testing the levels of differing layers of the core samples was how they determined the CO2 was growing vice past eras. Only recently did scientist find out that the ice they were testing did not grow in linear fashion, but in radial and center out as well. So ice levels in the cores are not stacked linear by age.

Who you gonnna believe? Me or you lying eyes?
Are we not finding all kinds of dead and long buried people in the Alps? Cavemen to WWII Soldiers buried under 30+ feet of snow? How did they get there? Did they die on the surface and some how work their way to the bottom of that much snow?

Earth answering the Call:
With the population growing larger and larger everyday. The first and most important building block for life on earth is fresh water. Since all the water the earth has is already created and we cannot create any more. Where do we get the a larger reserve of fresh water to support greater life? Melting Glaciers?

Global Warming if real and if man made there still remains one great and many little unanswered questions.
Is this truly good or bad for the Earth? Not humans but the EARTH.
What is the true stasis identity of the planet EARTH?
Remember Dinosaurs used to roam that Tropical island we now call Antarctica.

11B-Mailclerk

Another thing to consider on climate variability. An Ice Age coudl kill up to 90% of humanity. Let that settle in. When they occur, it is not a gradual chill-down. it happens quickly, with devastating impact on the entire biosphere. Large areas of bio-productive land go arid, as mega-gigatons of ice pile up at high latitudes and then lower and lower. So much ice accumulates as to drop the ocean levels and deform the earth’s crust. The shift of water from everywhere to icecap means net rainfall on arable land will be minimal. Forget farming and fishing for 6+billion under the circumstances. We will be lucky to preserve 1/2 a billion after the onset of glaciation. We are currently in an interglacial warm period. The cold spells last much longer than the warm spells. The warm spells more often than not are shorter than the current one. Which means, we are due. Now or in 2000 years, no one can be sure. But it is near-certain to occur, will devastate civilization,and will probably produce a near-extinction level event for Humanity. We barely survived the last one. So, if we supposedly can warm the planet, should we not do so to prevent the onset of the next glacial cycle, which we know with fair certainty will happen again almost anytime soon? Our worst-case warmup is not a 5+ billion casualty event. (Forget the “earth=venus” hysterics, we are too far away and get only 1/4 the energy) Melting all of it is a slow process that net migrates about 50% of the population, not kills it off. Much of the current barren north becomes fertile at higher temperatures. On the whole, “warm” is Mac more conducive to Homo Sapiens Sapiens, effectively a hot-climate species. So, do we have that power to change climate or not? If we can change the climate, don’t we have an obligation to prevent the ecological catastrophe and gigadeaths of another glaciation? Ice caps extending as far south as Pennsylvania, and tundra to Georgia. (Or -worse-) Most of Eurasia would be also be uninhabitable, as would much of… Read more »