Here you go!
79 Billions dollar so far .. Trillions more to come/ spend or tax
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/climate_money.pdf
415000 years of temperature change.....true or false?
- Thread starter nottyboi
- Start date
79 Billions dollar so far .. Trillions more to come/ spend or tax
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/climate_money.pdf
You're just plain wrong here. There is way more money available in govt/not for profit grants than there is from fossil fuel industries. For example the US Global Change Research Program's budget for research in 2014 was $2.65B. Not to mention all the money raised by Global Warming Advocate Groups - 350.org, Sierra Club, Greenpeace, Union of Concerned Scientists, National Resources Defense Council which total in the billions. Now who's the DENIER?
That 'report' is as dodgy as anything you've posted here, moviefan.
And that's saying something.
Now you are claiming that putting up solar panels or wind turbines is all a plot by climatologists so they can reap in the massive rewards of green energy?
That report claims putting up a solar panel is spending money in the climate field.
Do you actually read any of these before you post them?
The U.S. Government Accounting Office (GAO) can’t figure out what benefits taxpayers are getting from the many billions of dollars spent each year on policies that are purportedly aimed at addressing climate change.
A May 20 report noted that while annual federal funding for such activities has been increasing substantially, there is a lack of shared understanding of strategic priorities among the various responsible agency officials. This assessment agrees with the conclusions of a 2008 Congressional Research Service analysis which found no “overarching policy goal for climate change that guides the programs funded or the priorities among programs.”
According to the GAO, annual federal climate spending has increased from $4.6 billion in 2003 to $8.8 billion in 2010, amounting to $106.7 billion over that period. The money was spent in four general categories: technology to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, science to understand climate changes, international assistance for developing countries, and wildlife adaptation to respond to actual or expected changes. Technology spending, the largest category, grew from $2.56 billion to $5.5 billion over this period, increasingly advancing over others in total share. Data compiled by Joanne Nova at the Science and Policy Institute indicates that the U.S. Government spent more than $32.5 billion on climate studies between 1989 and 2009. This doesn’t count about $79 billion more spent for climate change technology research, foreign aid and tax breaks for “green energy.”
OMB pointed out that their previously noted agency budget compilations didn’t include revenues lost for the special deductions and tax credits intended to encourage greenhouse gas emission reductions. They attributed to those subsidies a cost of $7.2 billion in federal revenue losses during 2010 alone, ($16.1 billion since 1993), bringing the total since 2003 to $122.8 billion. Then there’s still another $26.1 billion earmarked for climate change programs and related activities within the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (or “Stimulus Bill”).
Climate change spending won’t slow any time soon…not so long as current Obama policies prevail. A proposed $1,328 million FY 2012 budget for its Global Climate Change Initiative (GCCI) aimed at helping developing countries address man-made global warming problems that we’ve allegedly caused represents a 557% increase since FY 2008 (then $202 million). Implemented through programs sponsored by the Department of State, Treasury, and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), it is funded by the administration’s executive budget. As stated, “The President’s FY2012 budget request follows on the December 2010 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) negotiations in Cancun, Mexico, which formulated a package of ‘nationally appropriate’ measures toward the goal of avoiding dangerous climate change.” This is part of “…a commitment to near-term and long-term climate financing for the least developed countries amounting to near $30 billion for the period 2010-2012, and $100 billion annually by 2020.”
Then there’s the matter of those escalating climate-premised EPA regulation costs that are killing businesses and jobs under cover of the Clean Air Act. These rampant overreaches are being justified by the agency’s Endangerment Finding proclaiming CO2 to be a pollutant. The finding ignored a contrary conclusion in EPA’s own “Internal Study on Climate” that: “Given the downward trend in temperatures since 1998 (which some think will continue until at least 2030), there is no particular reason to rush into decisions based upon a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data.”
The Small Business Administration estimates that compliance with such regulations costs the U.S. economy more than $1.75 trillion per year — about 12%-14% of GDP, and half of the $3.456 trillion Washington is currently spending. The Competitive Enterprise Institute believes the annual cost is closer to $1.8 trillion when an estimated $55.4 billion regulatory administration and policing budget is included. CEI further observes that those regulation costs exceed 2008 corporate pretax profits of $1.436 trillion; tower over estimated individual income taxes of $936 billion by 87%; and reveal a federal government whose share of the entire economy reaches 35.5% when combined with federal 2010 spending outlays.
A U.S. Energy Information Administration economic forecasting model indicates that a proposed 70% cut in CO2 emissions will cause gasoline prices to rise 77% over baseline projections, kill more than 3 million jobs, and reduce average household income by more than $4,000 each year.
Nice try. The report says the total amount spent in that 20-year time frame up to 2009 was $79 billion.
The more than $30 billion was the amount specific to climate research.
Included in the figure is money for NASA and NOAA, those are big organizations who have been around since the '50's.
Are you claiming that they worked out a plan to increase their funding (actually their funding has been very flat for a long time) by faking science?
Lame.
Meanwhile, the fossil fuel industry profit in the US and Canada last year alone was $257 billion.
http://priceofoil.org/profits-oil-gas-coal-companies-operating-u-s-canada/
You still think the big money is in research?
Read the report and check the sources.
It includes solar panels and wind turbines or any installation of green energy as 'climate change money'.
You really can't research anything, can you?
Another dodge. The $30-billion figure was specific to climate research.
The $79-billion figure applies to "climate change money." The report explicitly makes it clear that green technologies are not part of the $30-billion calculation.
Look you idiot the world economy is run on fossil fuel that a fact! $30 bilions dollars spend on climate research only is not chump change! That lot of money that could put into good use..like cancer research or helping the poor or helping the refugees In Syria.
Now you are down to $30 billion over 20+ years.
That includes funding NASA and NOAA climate departments, which includes satellites and other monitoring.
NASA's funding right now is pegged at $1.7 billion, though there were talks of cuts in the spring (so much for the ticket for big money of climate research or even climate monitoring).
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/06/house-science-climate-budget_n_7225848.html
That's fits your $30 billion claim.
So do you think that climatologists faked data to create funding that is now being cut by a third as a ticket to the big money?
Your claim looks more and more ridiculous the more you look into it.
Not surprising.
That $1.5 billion or so per year pales in comparison to what the insurance industry is reporting in costs from extreme weather linked to climate change.
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/10/climate-insurance
That's $130 billion per year in climate change costs.
Spending $1.5 billion on research is a drop in the bucket next to those costs.
And an even smaller drop compared to the $257 billion in profit alone from the fossil industry in the US and Canada alone.
Wow, I'm surprised this is still being debated.. Chunks of Antarctica and Greenland are melting causing massive rising sea levels. Someone go visit Bangladesh. Scientists now believe there is nothing that can reverse the process in the near term and even in the long term all you can do is slow it down. So it's more about preparation and trying to mitigate long long long term consequences.
Anyways, I think the last estimated figure was ~300 million people will die or be displaced by rising sea levels. Most of the Florida Key West is going to be underwater. Time will prove someone right or wrong.
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/
Personally, I'm not emotionally engaged, lots of people will suffer, mass migrations will happen and people will adjust - it may or may not cost millions of lives and massive global-political civil unrest. It's definitely an interesting time to be alive.
Anyways, I think the last estimated figure was ~300 million people will die or be displaced by rising sea levels. Most of the Florida Key West is going to be underwater. Time will prove someone right or wrong.
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/
Personally, I'm not emotionally engaged, lots of people will suffer, mass migrations will happen and people will adjust - it may or may not cost millions of lives and massive global-political civil unrest. It's definitely an interesting time to be alive.
We can all agree that the $1.7 billion a year that goes to NASA's earth science program is a lot more than the $40 million a year that goes to the three "climate denial groups."
Finally, we have a "consensus" on something.
No question the big money is in scientific grant research. If you can't see that you are willfully ignorant and the real DENIER. One arm of the USGCRP is the National Science Foundation - they got $313 million in funding. My guess is the vast majority of that went to climate change research (one sided of course)
Except NASA runs satellites and climate monitoring with that money.
It actually does something.
$40 million in 'dark money' to three groups that only do lobbying and propaganda is an entirely different thing.
And talking about that without mentioning the $257 billion in yearly profit in US/Canadian fossil fuel industries is disingenuous.
And then completely misrepresents the results: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...d-2014-warmest-year-record-38-sure-right.html
That's certainly "something." :thumb:
Nonsense.
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
I found an excellent chart that accurately describes your reasoning.
Enjoy.
Bjorn again?
It's too bad you couldn't understand what Schmidt was saying in the article.
He confirmed that 2014 was no warmer than 2005 or 2010. The slight microscopic differences in the numbers -- differences of a few 1/100ths of a degree -- were significantly less than the margin of error, meaning the temperature anomalies for those years were statistically the same.
In plain English, he confirmed that NASA was lying when it made the definitive declaration that 2014 was the warmest year. NASA had no evidence to support such a statement.
Such blatant dishonesty doesn't strike me as a good use of taxpayers' dollars.
Lying?
What an idiot you are.
NASA reports 2014 was the warmest year on record and even if its only a few 1/100ths of a degree, its still warmer.
I'm sure your next stop will be the olympics, where you'll tell the judges that the Canadian runners were statistically tied with first.
What an idiotic argument, and to call it 'lying' is just ridiculous.
Ridiculous.
Though on the positive side you now admit that the 3 warmest years on record (not including this year) all happened within the last 10 years.
To admit that then claim that warming has stopped is even more ridiculous.
A total Bjorn claim, like this one:
Wrong.
From the Daily Mail:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-year-record-38-sure-right.html#ixzz3l0SRhV00
The margin of error means any one of 2005, 2010 or 2014 could have been the warmest year. NASA's news release with the definitive statement about 2014 was untrue, as NASA had no evidence to support such a statement. That means NASA was lying.
And I remain unconvinced that an organization that lies about such things is spending tax dollars wisely.
