News that doesn't receive the necessary attention.

Saturday, December 12, 2015

On Dec. 9, 2015, John Kerry told Paris climate conference that even if CO2 from US and all industrial nations 'went down to zero,' 'guess what,' it wouldn't be enough to offset emissions 'from the rest of the world' :44 You Tube video

12/9/15, John Kerry at Paris climate conference said: "If we (the US) somehow eliminated all of our domestic greenhouse gas emissions, guess what – that still wouldn’t be enough to offset the carbon pollution coming from the rest of the world. If all the industrial nations went down to zero emissions –- remember what I just said, all the industrial emissions went down to zero emissions -– it wouldn’t be enough, not when more than 65% of the world’s carbon pollution comes from the developing world."...[Note: I've been unable to find mention of Kerry's 12/9/15 remarks in NY Times articles devoted to Kerry ("John Kerry") or elsewhere. Perhaps they exist, I just haven't seen them in the time I've been able to spend looking for them. S.] You Tube video is entitled, "John Kerry admits at COP-21 that US emissions cuts accomplish nothing for climate."

12/9/15, "Why Bother? John Kerry Admits American CO2 Cuts Would Be Pointless," Breitbart, Steve Milloy

"It’s 40 seconds that should turn the global warming world upside down.

Secretary of State John Kerry made an astounding confession today at the COP-21 climate conference in Paris: Emissions cuts by the U.S. and other industrialized nations will make no difference to global climate, he said.

Here are Kerry’s exact words:

"The fact is that even if every American citizen biked to work, carpooled to school, used only solar panels to power their homes, if we each planted a dozen trees, if we somehow eliminated all of our domestic greenhouse gas emissions, guess what – that still wouldn’t be enough to offset the carbon pollution coming from the rest of the world.

If all the industrial nations went down to zero emissions –- remember what I just said, all the industrial emissions went down to zero emissions -– it wouldn’t be enough, not when more than 65% of the world’s carbon pollution comes from the developing world."

This is the first time such a senior government official has admitted the utter futility of American carbon dioxide emissions cuts. That’s a consequential admission even if you believe the claims of climate alarmists about the danger of emissions.

Several years ago, Sen. James Inhofe had coaxed former EPA administrator Lisa Jackson into admitting that U.S. emissions cuts would make little difference to global climate. Current EPA administrator Gina McCarthy has admitted that the point of EPA’s new carbon dioxide rules aimed at power plants is really to show global leadership on the issue. But Kerry’s clear, frank and even emphasized admission is simply astounding.

The admission should have legal as well as political consequences. In the 2007 Supreme Court decision giving EPA authority to regulate greenhouse gases, the Supreme Court was careful to note that, although EPA couldn’t solve the global warming problem all at once or by itself, it was allowed to make incremental progress on the problem. Kerry’s admission shows that the U.S. government knows that such progress is simply not possible.

This admission should find its way into the ongoing litigation of EPA power plant rules and it should blow them up."


Comment: "EPA power plant rules" are the least of it. The united US political class--with its access to unlimited US taxpayer dollars and without taxpayers' knowledge-- officially began this cash cow in 1990 with George Bush #1's USGCRP mandate which placed the imaginary global climate danger industry in the Executive branch of US government where it remains today. USGCRP diverted 13 federal agencies to attend to alleged burgeoning global climate and environmental dangers that could possibly be cured--but only if enough US taxpayer money could be made available in perpetuity. Their business model was to demonize and gin up hatred toward innocent Americans. They figured that endless cash would flow from 24/7 global pressure against the very existence of America incessantly fed from the media into the mind of every human being on the planet. The US political class even had no problem using US taxpayer dollars to fund "scientific research" alleging that CO2 from greedy Americans was causing present day African civil wars, starvation, mass murder, dislocation of millions, etc. 

On 11/20/2009, right before the December 2009 Copenhagen global warming conference, the US National Academy of Sciences said human CO2 induced global warming exists and causes civil war in Africa: "Warming increases risk of civil war in Africa," and that 'foreign aid donors' might want to address the issue


The above picture ran with an 11/24/2009 BBC article leading up to Copenhagen, saying civil war in Darfur was due in large part to global warming which was due to industrialized nations (meaning evil Americans who also made this person cry).

Long after the Copenhagen 'hate America fest' was over, a 9/6/2010 BBC report said there is of course no connection between climate and wars in Africa.

Incitement of hatred against Americans and starvation of the American economy continue at the pleasure of the US political class. Every day, millions of US taxpayer dollars that might otherwise have gone to the poor and needy flow to cronies in the cash in advance, climate danger industry. 

George Bush #1 deserves a loud shout out from Paris. Obama is merely following his lead:  

The "global climate danger industry" was established in 1990 by George Bush #1. (
Public law 101-606). Henceforth, precious US taxpayer dollars that might otherwise help the poor and needy would flow to "climate" cronies. George Bush #1 never gets credit he deserves for financing this imaginary industry. His 1990 Executive mandate, Global Change Research Act (also known as USGCRP) declared general global environmental crises, ordered 13 federal agencies to attend to them, and bound US taxpayers to finance them in perpetuity. Bush #1 actually created today's $2 billion a day imaginary climate danger cash cow from scratch. The US political class knows its continuing success requires constant demonization and degradation of innocent Americans. This fits the definition of genocide.

"Global Change Research Act of 1990"

3/6/15, "Causes and consequences of the climate science boom," William Butos and Thomas McQuade

"Funding appears to be driving the science rather than the other way around."  

"2. By any standards, what we have documented here is a massive funding drive, highlighting the patterns of climate science Rand D as funded and directed only by the Executive Branch and the various agencies that fall within its purview."...

More from the paper:

"1. The Government’s Role in Climate Science Funding...[is] embedded in scores of agencies and programs scattered throughout the Executive Branch of the US government. While such agency activities related to climate science have received funding for many years as components of their mission statements, the pursuit of an integrated national agenda to study climate change and implement policy initiatives took a critical step with passage of the Global Change Research Act of 1990. This Act established institutional structures operating out of the White House to develop and oversee the implementation of a National Global Change Research Plan and created the US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) to coordinate the climate change research activities of Executive Departments and agencies.[33] As of 2014, the coordination of climate change-related activities resides largely in the President’s Office of Science and Technology Policy, which houses several separate offices, including the offices of Environment and Energy, Polar Sciences, Ocean Sciences, Clean Energy and Materials R&D, Climate Adaptation and Ecosystems, National Climate Assessment, and others. The Office of the President also maintains the National Science and Technology Council, which oversees the Committee on Environment, Natural Resources, and Sustainability and its Subcommittee on Climate Change Research. The Subcommittee is charged with the responsibility of planning and coordinating with the interagency USGCRP. Also, the Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy is housed within the President’s Domestic Policy Council. While Congress authorizes Executive branch budgets, the priorities these departments and agencies follow are set by the White House. As expressed in various agency and Executive Branch strategic plans, these efforts have been recently organized around four components comprising (1) climate change research and education, (2) emissions reduction through “clean” energy technologies and investments, (3) adaptation to climate change, and (4) international climate change leadership.[36]....By any of these measures, the scale of climate science R&D has increased substantially since 2001. Perhaps, though, the largest funding increases have occurred in developing new technologies and tax subsidies. As can be seen from Table 1, federal dollars to develop and implement “clean energy technologies” have increased from $1.7 billion in 2001 to $5.8 billion in 2013, while energy tax subsidies have increased from zero in 2001 and 2002 to $13 billion in 2013, with the largest increases happening since 2010. The impact on scientific research of government funding is not just a matter of the amounts but also of the concentration of research monies that arises from the focus a single source can bring to bear on particular kinds of scientific research. Government is that single source and has Big Player effects because it has access to a deep pool of taxpayer (and, indeed, borrowed and created) funds combined with regulatory and enforcement powers which necessarily place it on a different footing from other players and institutions. Notwithstanding the interplay of rival interests within the government and the separation of powers among the different branches, there is an important sense in which government’s inherent need to act produces a particular set of decisions that fall within a relatively narrow corridor of ends to which it can concentrate substantial resources.

2. By any standards, what we have documented here is a massive funding drive, highlighting the patterns of climate science RandD as funded and directed only by the Executive Branch and the various agencies that fall within its purview.[40] To put its magnitude into some context, the $9.3 billion funding requested for climate science R&D in 2013 is about one-third of the total amount appropriated for all 27 National Institutes of Health in the same year,[41] yet it is more than enough to sustain a science boom. Its directional characteristic, concentrated as it has been on R&D premised on the controversial issue of the actual sensitivity of climate to human-caused emissions, has gone hand in hand with the IPCC’s expressions of increasing confidence in the AGW hypothesis and increasingly shrill claims of impending disaster.

3. The recent pattern of federal climate science funding, moving toward emphasis on the development of technologies and their subsidization through the tax system, suggests that climate change funding has become more tightly connected to agencies like the Department of Energy, NASA, the Department of Commerce (NOAA), EPA, and cross-cutting projects and programs involving multiple agencies under integrating and coordinating agencies, like the USGCRP, lodged within the Executive branch. The allocations of budgets within these agencies are more directly determined and implemented by Administration priorities and policies. We note that the traditional role of NSF in supporting basic science based on a system of merit awards provided (despite some clear imperfections) certain advantages with regard to generating impartial science. In contrast, even a casual perusal of current agency documents, such as The National Science and Technology Council’s The National Global Change Research Plan 2012-2021, shows that those driving this movement make no pretense as to their premises and starting points.[39]

4. To be sure, the very opaqueness of these allocations and their actual use only provides for “ball park” estimates. However, we believe that the results presented in Table 3 come closer to a useful accounting than what previously has been provided. We have combined data from Leggett et al. (2013) and the AAAS Reports for Fiscal Years 2012 and 2013 (the only years for which the AAAS provides detailed budgetary data for climate science R&D and climate-related funding). This constrains Table 3 to including data only from 2010 through 2013. We have adjusted budgetary data and categorized it in light of discussion points 1-5 above. Note that the estimated aggregate expenditures for climate science and climate-related funding (excluding tax subsidies) from 2010-2013 in Table 3 are about twice that of the Leggett findings.

5.5 Funds administered by the Treasury Department in Table 2 are credit lines and loans channeled through the World Bank earmarked for international organizations to finance clean technologies and sustainable practices; consequently such funds would also more accurately be considered as climate-related sustainability and adaptation....

8. This summary and the detail in Table 1, however, do not capture the full scale of federal funding for climate science R&D. Two complications must be considered to capture a more accurate estimate. First, the entries in the first row of Table 1 for climate science only refer to monies administered by the Executive branch via the office of the USGCRP and does not include all climate-related R&D in the federal budget. For example, the entry in Table 1 for the USGCRP in 2011 is just under $2.5 billion; yet the actual budget expenditures for climate science-related R&D as calculated by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) total about $16.1 billion.[38] In addition, since USGCRP funding is comprised of monies contributed from the authorized budgets of the 13 participating departments and agencies, a more accurate estimate of climate-related R&D requires deducting USGCRP funding from the aggregated budgets of those 13, most of which are included in Table 2.

9. Leggett et al. (2013) of the Congressional Research Service provides a recent account of climate change funding based on data provided by the White House Office of Management and Budget (see Table 1, below). Total expenditures for federal funded climate change programs from 2001-2013 were $110.9 billion in current dollars and $120.2 billion in 2012 dollars. “Total budgetary impact” includes various tax provisions and subsidies related to reducing greenhouse gas emissions (which are treated as “tax expenditures”) and shows total climate change expenditures from 2001-2013 to be $145.3 billion in current dollars and $155.4 billion in 2012 dollars.[37]

10. The USGCRP operates as a confederacy of the research components of thirteen participating government agencies, each of which independently designates funds in accordance with the objectives of the USGCRP; these monies comprise the program budget of the USGCRP to fund agency cross-cutting climate science R&D.[34] The departments and agencies whose activities comprise the bulk of such funding include independent agencies such as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Science Foundation, Environmental Protection Agency, US Agency for International Development, the quasi-official Smithsonian Institute, and Executive Departments that include Agriculture, Commerce (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Institute of Standards and Technology), Energy, Interior (the US Geological Survey and conservation initiatives), State, and Treasury.[35]

11. The past 15 years have seen a sustained program of funding, largely from government or quasi-government entities.[31] The funding efforts are spread across a bewildering array of sources and buried in a labyrinth of programs, agency initiatives, interagency activities, and Presidential Offices, but what they seem to have in common is an adherence to the assumption that human activity is primarily responsible for the warming observed in the latter part of the 20th century. Funding appears to be driving the science rather than the other way around. And the extent of this funding appears not to have been heretofore fully documented.[32]"...


No comments:


Blog Archive

About Me

My photo
I'm the daughter of an Eagle Scout (fan of the Brooklyn Dodgers and Mets) and a Beauty Queen.