In Light of Decreased Global Temperatures, It's Time to Take a Look at the Global Warming Spending Racket
International media outlets deserve credit for reporting accurately on the redistribution schemes that flowed out from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. But they should follow up by asking some hard questions about scientific assumptions that have not materialized.
Since the planet appears to be getting colder rather than warmer, it would seem that public policy should be reshaped to reflect challenges that have gone unaddressed at the U.N. Part of doing that involves taking a harder look at the massive amounts of money that are being spent trying to fight a problem that increasingly appears not to exist at all.
Dozens of nations signed off on an agreement that said they would make “contributions” toward reducing carbon dioxide emissions. The Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage is non-binding; so it’s not clear what the “contribution” actually means. In a press release, the UNFCCC said “detailed work” would begin next year in anticipation of upcoming conferences in Lima, Peru and Paris, France. That should give the media ample to dig into the impact global warming policies might have on the vulnerable populations the U.N. claims to champion.
They could begin with representatives from the 132 developing nations that walked out of the Warsaw conference when their demands were not met. If the Western governments genuinely believe in their claim that human emissions are responsible for dangerous levels of global warming, then there is an argument to be made that the poorer countries are in need of some form of financial aid.
But a rising number of climate skeptics now question the premise of man-made global warming theories. Almost half of meteorologists are of the view that human activity is not responsible for climate change. Marc Morano, editor of the Climate Depot site, has identified over 1,000 scientists worldwide who are firmly in the skeptical camp. Yet, Western governments continue to pour time, energy and precious resources into global warming initiatives as if widespread scientific skepticism did not exist.
The White House report on Federal Climate Changes Expenditures (budget authority) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2013, which ended on September 30, provided the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP), with the opportunity to refresh its calculations of total government expenditures based on three reports: 1) "Climate Change: Improvements Needed to Clarify National Priorities and better Align Them with Federal Funding Decisions" by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), May 2011, which covers the period from 1993 (calendar year) to FY 2010; 2) "Funding for Federal Climate Change Activities, FY 2008 to FY 2012, from the Congressional Research Service (CRS), April 26, 2012; and 3) Federal Climate Change Expenditures: Report to Congress by the White House, August 2013, which covers FY 2012 & 2013.”
Here is what it found: “The GAO report shows a total of $107 billion in hard expenditures, including about $31.5 billion on climate science. These sums includes expenditures under American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Stimulus Bill). The GAO report also shows . an additional $16 billion for soft expenditures. The CRS report shows $8.9 billion and $8.3 billion in hard expenditures in 2011 and 2012, respectively, of which $2.4 billion went to climate science each year. The White House report shows that in 2012 soft expenditures amounted to about $10.1 billion, roughly what was previously estimated. In 2013, total expenditures were $22.2 billion, of which $2.5 billion went to climate science, and about $13.1 billion were soft expenditures. The total for the 21-year period are: $185 billion, with $133 billion for hard expenditures, of which about $39 billion went to science, and about $52 billion for soft expenditures.”
Since the planet has been getting cooler, not warmer since 1998, the media should be asking questions about the opportunity cost of the investments Western governments have been making. Since it is now evident there is a large and growing disparity between climate model predictions and actual scientific observations, it’s pretty clear the federal government’s spending priorities have been misplaced. Astronomers have taking note of a calm solar cycle that translates into fewer sunspots. “It is the weakest cycle the sun has been in for all the space age, for 50 years,” National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association physicist Doug Biesecker has told members of the press. This could be a major contributing factor behind cooler temperatures that have been recorded recently. A group of German scientists are now forecasting a cooling trend that will persist for the duration of the 21st Century as a result of decreased solar activity. This is what Donald Easterbook, a retired geologist from Western Washington University, anticipates 25 to 30 years of global cooling. The Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), and sun spot activity over the past century strongly correlate with previous warming and coolings, Easterbook explains. The recent shift of the PDO back into a cool phase is “right on schedule,” Easterbook points out in a Dec. 2008 paper for the American Geophysical Union.
Contrary to what high profile U.S. government officials have said, historical records show that cooling phases tend to be more dangerous and destabilizing to vulnerable populations. Food shortages and civic turmoil have been linked to global cooling, not global warming, Morano reports on his web site. By denying developing countries access to cheap, affordable energy in form of fossil fuels, environmentalists and their allies in the U.N., are putting these populations in a more comprised position.
The draft version of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)’s Fifth Assessment (AR5), which is already on the Internet, is narrowly focused on the human contribution to global warming and its potential after effects. Updated scientific research now shows that these assumptions are well off the mark.
It’s time for members of the press to taking a harder look at the impact of global warming policies as opposed to global warming, per se.