The US House of Representatives have voted, by 244 to 179 largely along partisan lines, to strip the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change of its funding for the remainder of 2011.
Some climate scientists aren't happy.
Asked about the vote, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration head Jane Lubchenco said she disagreed with the House’s action. “Science should not be partisan. It is highly unfortunate that in many cases it is,” she said. The spending measure, which would fund the government for the rest of 2011, now goes to the Senate, which disagrees with many portions of the bill.
“It’s a real tragedy that the issue is so poorly understood that it doesn’t have the support I think it deserves given how important it is,” says Stanford ecologist Chris Field, the lead author on one of three IPCC working groups. The House doesn't "like the message so they are killing the messenger," says climate scientist Mike MacCracken, former director of the U.S. Global Change Research Program. source
Dr Roy Spencer's research work has been entirely supported by US government agencies and he has written a post On the House Vote to Defund the IPCC. A wee taster for you:
Politicians formed the IPCC over 20 years ago with an endgame in mind: to regulate CO2 emissions. I know, because I witnessed some of the behind-the-scenes planning. It is not a scientific organization. It was organized to use the government-funded scientific research establishment to achieve policy goals.
Now, that’s not necessarily a bad thing...
The rest can be read here.
This is a small victory for common sense. I've said all along if humans are responsible for polluting the atmosphere we should take responsibility for our actions, but to impoverish hundreds of thousands by claiming green taxes on our basic need for heat and light, on a science which is proving to be inaccurate, is robbery.
The IPCC has shown its bias with the exposure of their methods. It can no longer be trusted even by those who do consider humans are responsible for the destruction of the planet.
Posts
22 comments:
Morning Madame,
Is this the beginning of the tide turning against the flow of lies? I truly hope so, I see the Torygraph this morning is warning on the dangers of red meat consumption and it's links to Bowel Cancer and indirectly CO2 emissions - tenuous at best. Nothing wrong with a balanced diet, when I was in the Falklands last year, I found out that they have a high rate of bowel cancer and that is down to a lack of fresh fruit n veg :(........8
Have a superb day,
CD x
"This is a small victory for common sense."
Which our American cousins seem to possess, but appears absent from our representatives.
All MPs should be instructed by their electorate to pressurise Huhne, Cameron & Clegg to withdraw UK funding too.
Can't see it happening here, not with Lib Dums in the government.
"One small step for man..........."
Seems sort of appropriate, here.
Subrosa
The problem is the loony tea party and fellow religious madmen actually believe they will all be saved in the Arc sent by God.
To them nutters climate change would only be part of Gods will to destroy the earth(which they all pray for everyday).
And once the Jews rebuild the temple in Isreal Armageddon shall engulf the Earth.
But they the loons believe will be swept up in the heavenly rapture into eternal paradise..
Yep common sense right wing USA Style...
The nuts actually state the world is between 6000 and 8000 years old
and Evolution is false God created man from dust and women from a rib.
And you praise these morons and expect normal sane intelligent people to listen to them.
I suspect it's just a shot over the bows but won't actually happen. That said, it could be the thin edge of a very sharp wedge.
Hi SR,Having read the article and the links, It seems the guy is right on the money.So much of this AGW seems to be "dream up a religion and then find a way to con the suckers into believing it".
So much of the AGW "science" falls apart with a little bit of secondary school knowledge, some research into paleolithic climates and the use of logic and common sense.
Have to remember too that the US does not like its status of greatest polluter. I think we need to get the balance right rather than just say green policies are all cack. We have seriously damaged the planet, that is a fact and creating serious problems for future generation. We have been selfishly destroying vast areas for decades now and longer. And whatever people think of the changes we are seeing and of global warming the evidence, even in our daily weather, tells its own story.
Afternoon Sir. Aye, we'll soon be told that water isn't good for us. Come to think of it I'm sure that's already been said.
You too Sir.
They should Joe, but as we know, once they gain power the people don't matter.
It will be interesting to see how Cameron handles it QM. Mind you the MSM aren't exactly highlighting it are they? Maybe being sat upon by someone?
It does OR but somehow I think our coalition will brush this off.
You're not fond of Americans then Niko. :)
It just could be Jock. Fingers crossed.
The guy's ok Apogee. I've been reading him for a wee while now. Knows what he's talking about and also knows the political scene over there.
I'm not saying green policies are all rubbish Jo, anything but. Pollution is a problem but why is it that us, on this small island, are paying billions of pounds - gleaned from taxes - while the real polluters like India are building bigger and bigger fossil fuel using factories? Doesn't make sense to me. All that's happening is that we're filling the pockets of those companies which own our utilities.
Being a layperson and only receiving my knowledge from what I read, our daily weather this year isn't so much different to what it was in the late 70s or 40s. These things run in cycles, the cycles being defined in decades or centuries.
I rather like this post today on A Tangled Web.
We'll never survive!
David does write well doesn't he EP. Of course we'll survive. It's all scaremongering just to keep us under control.
While I'm quite ambivalent towards the claims and scenarios presented on aspects of global climate change, I consider it ridiculous to ignore it out of hand.
That said, much of the ridicule is warranted, not by the questions science has raised, but by the knee jerk solutions and uncertainties being hawked by the corporates and political carpet baggers.
One certainty is that this planet of ours has never had 7 billion people living on it, all of whom are aspiring to join the ranks of avaricious, if gullible consumers.
We know, the captains of corporates don't want this to be restrained, let alone changed. indeed they want to add their profit margins to it. And our politicians want to play the each-way bet, by taking the credit and money in one hand while pontificating with the other.
What is really sad is, all this chattering claptrap has diminished our trust in science down to the level earned by politics.
It truly doesn't deserve that; and is the one thing our responses have to be based on.
Crinkly, it's too late now for politicians to do a U-turn. The wheels are in motion for billions to be stolen from the electorate so why would they change direction now?
I'm not disillusioned by science per se, but the global warming issue has certainly ensured I redouble my researches before I form an opinion. Or, maybe it's just the overwhelming 'pro' lobby such as the MSM which caused my change of method.
I am no expert but the evidence we see of ice caps melting and rising water levels, of years of dumping dangerous rubbish in our seas and so on have to be challenged.
The truth is man is the most dangerous and destructive animal on the planet. We are here now. What of those who follow us? What sort of legacy are we leaving for them?
I think there are scaremongers out there of course but there are also people sounding valid warnings.
I agree with you but with limits Jo.IMO the CO2 issue is a scam. It makes invisible money for those who are big enough to afford losses.
Post a Comment