Are the Gloves Off Yet?

| March 20, 2017 | 80 Comments

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

Comments (80)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. ex-OS2 says:

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

    No mention of popcorn? WTF?

  2. 2banana says:

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

  3. 2/17 Air Cav says:

    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 says:

      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 says:

        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.

    • Ex-PH2 says:

      I always have to have fresh batteries on hand for cat toys, and catnip and cat cookies.

    • George V says:

      ” 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 says:

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

  4. The Other Whitey says:

    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.

  5. Wilted Willy says:

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

  6. AW1Ed says:

    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 says:

      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 near universal. The how all that complex phenomena that is wrapped up in ‘climate’ interacts and functions is still heavily argued, with pockets of huge agreement and pockets of incredible disagreement.

      I dislike the term ‘settled science’ as well, but I encourage anyone who thinks young professors and grad students are part of a big conspiracy and all this shit is easily disproven to go to their local university and sit in on a few talks about ‘climate change’. Wait, scratch that – people rarely give talks about ‘climate change’. Instead, they give talks about isotopes found in ice layers, and sediment studies, and emissions analysis, all in painful, mathematically sound ways, and all of those point towards reasons for climate change.

      Anything as complex as the climate is never going to be fully understood, but currently the mountain of evidence pointing towards a human factor in the shifting cycles far, far outweighs the evidence against.

      That’s my soapbox for the day. I wish we’d get the politics out of science and just look at the data itself.

      • ex-OS2 says:

        You forgot to mention popcorn LC.

      • Ex-PH2 says:

        Explain, then, LC, if the human factor is the key to it all, then how come there have been recurring glaciation cycles and recurring interglacial cycles when humans hadn’t even started cultivating plants – oh, wait, make that LONG BEFORE Homo Sapiens even existed as a species.

        Explain that, LC. C’mon, do it!

        I have a chart that shows the longest interglacial period – WARMING, to you – occurred before modern humans existed. The only things even vaguely resembling primates that existed TWO million years ago were not Homo Sapiens.

        The earliest Homo sapiens arrived some 200,000 years ago. Do you really expect me, or anyone else with a working brain, to believe for one second that WE had anything to do with cold and warm periods that occurred eons before we even existed?

        Yeah, I guess you do. Try putting that ‘climate guilt trip’ on someone else, will you?

        • Wilted Willy says:

          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??

        • Ex-PH2 says:

          Yes, Willy, it’s oddly the one thing that trees/plants need more than anything else except water. It’s what they live on. And forest or grassland fires? Those release phosphates, nitrogen and potassium in the form of ash for recycling.

          Biology is a symbiotic system. We need plants, but they can do quite well without us.

        • MSG Eric says:

          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 says:

            “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 says:

            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 says:

        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 says:

        “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 says:

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

      • Ex-PH2 says:

        We don’t need more climate research. We need more research in meteorology for more accurate weather forecasting.

        I track my own weather, backcheck it against Accuweather’s forecasts and find that they are frequently so far off the mark, it’s ridiculous. The best we can hope for right now is a week’s worth of forecasts and even that is sometimes off the mark.

        And anyway, LC completely missed the point of my article, which is that funding for climate research was funneled into programs that had nothing to do with it and buried there, to make it harder to find. In plain English, taxpayers were defrauded by the previous administration when that money could have gone into something really useful, like infrastructure repairs.

  7. Eden says:

    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.

    • Ex-PH2 says:

      I think we’re just going through one of those recurring cycles of extreme weather.
      My grandfather made a note in his journal of the 1878 blizzard and the 1888 blizzard. He also went to Alaska during the Gold Rush and was waiting at Chillicothe Pass when an avalanche occurred.
      The cycles are within other cycles, something that is missed by researchers.

    • timactual says:

      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.

  8. HMC Ret says:

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

  9. Commissar says:

    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 says:

      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.

    • A Proud Infidel®™ says:

      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 says:

        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.

      • Ex-PH2 says:

        In the 1970s, we were told that palm trees would be growing in Chicago and points north, that from Chicago north everything would be tropical, and existing farmland would be a desert.

        Still waiting for those palm trees to show up.

    • OldManchu says:

      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.

      • Ex-PH2 says:

        Here’s a little history of the use of electricity in the USA.
        In 1872, Tom Edison builds an electric power generating plant in New York City. In 1882, he formed the Edison Electric Power Generating Company in New York City, actually in Manhatten. Strangely, many power companies now still have Edison (as in Commonwealth Edison) in their names.
        In 1880, electric power and lighting came to Chicago when the Palmer House Hotel was wired for electric lighting for the Republican convention.
        It just did not catch on as quickly as was anticipated. Most people lit their homes with gas light, oil lamps and candles. Some still do. I have two oil lamps for emergencies. They belonged to my paternal great grandmother.
        It was not until 1925 that most homes got electric power. The Tennessee Valley Authority was chartered by the US government in 1933, partly to bring electricity to people who did not have it in the Appalachian region. It also provided jobs during the Great Depression.
        Since electric power is taken for granted by idjits like the Piuperdink and his associated proggie loons, I think it would be extremely beneficial if they were all cut off for a minimum of one week from all forms of electric power, no matter how it’s generated.

        It’s like I said: if the power cuts out during a storm and stays out for any length of time, I can light my gas stove with matches. You can’t do that with an electric stove.

        Since I’m more interested in better and more accurate weather forecasting than anything else, lars the Poodledick Piuperdink has no basis for his screeching, howling bitchfest and is only doing that to get attention, as usual.

    • 11b-mailclerk says:

      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.

    • Ex-PH2 says:

      Well, as usual, Poodledick, you famous ignoramus, you intentionally misunderstand what was clear to everyone else.

      That $77 billion was not a single fund.

      It was buried, hidden away, disguised as funding for programs that had nothing to do with climate research in any way. It is just another example of the Obama administration’s blatant misuse of funding and defrauding taxpayers by pulling a scam.
      Since when does the National Endowment for the Arts have one freaking thing to do with climate research? Yes, that is one of those programs that got climate research funding.
      It is nothing but fraud, fraud, fraud and it is not something I take lightly, especially when the roads in my area and all the counties around here are desperately in need of repair. They can’t get funding for that, you jackass, because it went elsewhere to fund quackery.

      Maybe once in a while, you could read for comprehension. As it is, Piuperdink, all you do is make an ass of yourself in public all over again.

    • O-4E says:

      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?

      • Ex-PH2 says:

        What IS the agenda?
        If 330,000 German households were cut off the power supply because they could not afford to pay the bill, which is THREE TIMES what we pay here, you have to start asking that question and ask it loudly enough to make politicians quake in their offices.

        The excessive German rate $.30/kwh vs. my $.113/kwh rate is entirely due to mandatory inclusion of wind/solar power, whether the customer wants it or not. This is not a joke, and that is where these morons are heading us.

    • Kinda old ET1 says:

      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.

      • Ex-PH2 says:

        You left something out, ET1.

        Carbon dioxide, as someone else pointed out earlier, is essential to growth of plants. Anyone who understands biology and biosystems knows that. Plants require it. Without it, they die off. No plants, no food for animals, no cereal in your bowl, no more atmospheric OXYGEN, which animals require to stay alive. 🙂

    • SFC D says:

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

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

      • Ex-PH2 says:

        No, it did NOT go where it needed to go. It went to funds like the National Endowment for the Arts. What in the blue-eyed, stuffed bird world does that have to do with climate research?
        Here’s a list of some of the places where that $77 billion went.

        21st Century Community Learning Centers – Provides funding for after-school programs for students in high-poverty areas
        Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Program – Provides loans to automotive manufacturers developing fuel-efficient technologies
        African Development Foundation:- Invests in African businesses
        Appalachian Regional Commission: Invests in projects for economic growth in the Appalachian region
        ARPA-E Funds – research into new energy technologies
        Capacity Building for Community Development and Affordable Housing: Provides housing assistance to low-income families
        Chemical Safety Board-Investigates industrial chemical accidents
        Chesapeake Bay Restoration – Provides funding for cleanup and protection of the Chesapeake Bay watershed
        Community Development Block Grant: Provides housing assistance to low-income families
        Community Development Financial Institutions Fund grants: Provides support to financial services in underserved communities
        Community Services Block Grant: Provides funding for projects that alleviate poverty
        Corporation for National & Community Service: Runs AmeriCorps, City Year and other public service programs
        Corporation for Public Broadcasting: Provides federal funding to local radio and television stations across the U.S. (They also get income from ads and public fund drives. I’ve been on some of those fund drives.)
        Delta Regional Authority: Funds infrastructure and economic programs in the Mississippi River delta region
        Denali Commission: Provides economic assistance in Alaska
        Economic Development Administration: Provides funding for economic development projects across the U.S.
        Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance Account: Provides emergency funding for humanitarian crises around the world
        Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program: Tests pesticides and other chemicals for adverse effects on humans and animals
        Energy Star: Provides assistance for energy efficiency programs
        Essential Air Service program: Provides funding for air transportation to rural communities
        Global Climate Change Initiative: Provides financial assistance for climate change initiatives in developing countries
        Great Lakes Restoration Initiative: Provides funding for cleanup and protection of Great Lakes watersheds
        Institute of Museum and Library Services: Provides grants and research for libraries, museums, zoos and similar institutions.
        Inter-American Foundation: Provides development assistance to Latin American countries
        Legal Services Corporation: Provides legal aid to low-income Americans
        Low Income Home Energy Assistance: Program Assists low-income families with heating and cooling costs
        McGovern-Dole Food for Education Program: Provides school meals and nutrition programs in poor countries
        Minority Business Development Agency : Provides technical assistance to minority-owned businesses
        NASA Office of Education: Supports STEM education initiatives
        National Endowment for the Arts: Provides funding for arts projects
        National Endowment for the Humanities: Provides funding for cultural institutions like universities and museums, as well as projects by individual scholars
        Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation: Provides housing assistance to low-income Americans
        Northern Border Regional Commission: Economic development in northern New England
        Overseas Private Investment Corporation: Helps U.S. businesses invest overseas
        Senior Community Service Employment Program: Funds job training for low-income, unemployed seniors
        State Energy Program: Provides funding and technical assistance for energy efficiency and clean energy
        Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants program: Provides grants to improve education quality
        Targeted Air Shed Grants: Provides grants for air pollution control
        TIGER Discretionary Grant program: Provides funding for transportation projects across the U.S.
        Title 17 Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program: Provides loan guarantees for new energy products
        United States Institute of Peace: Works on international conflict mitigation
        United States Interagency Council on Homelessness: Coordinates federal response to homelessness
        US Trade and Development Agency: Promotes U.S. exports in developing countries.
        Water and Waste Disposal Loan and Grant Program: Provides funding for water infrastructure in rural areas
        Weatherization Assistance Program: Provides grants for weatherizing low-income homes
        Woodrow Wilson International Center: Foreign policy think tank

        I see nothing vaguely related to climate or weather-related ANYTHING in the National Endowment for the Arts/Humanities, the Wilson International Center, the US Trade & Development Center, Corporation for Public Broadcasting (PBS) which also gets a large cash flow from ads and funding drives, and I have worked on those fund drives.

        It’s all bullshit, it’s all meant to hide the fact that money which could go to better uses is being spent on crap. Why are WE funding lunch programs in other countries if we have 16 million people going hungry in THIS country (if those TV ads are accurate)? Why? Why are WE assisting refugees and migrants in other countries when they’re scrambling in under the wire instead of coming in through the front door like others have done? Why?

        I said that the Great Lakes program is being defunded, but it’s been losing funding for several years now and there’s no surprise to it. But what does that have to do with the Minority Business Development Agency, which is another program where these funds are being stashed?

        To quote the Bloomberg article: “In 2012, the Federal Highway Administration made climate-adaptation projects eligible for federal aid. Last year, the Department of Housing and Urban Development awarded $1 billion through its Community Development Block Grant program to projects protecting against climate change-related natural disasters.”

        The Federal Highway Administration, for God’s sake?

        Well, great, but MY house is not protected in any way from any natural disasters, so this is pure unadulterated bullshit.

  10. O-4E says:

    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

    • Ex-PH2 says:

      Thanks for that tip, O-4E. I know someone who is a vet who is mostly housebound and who gets meals delivered by MOW during the week, but not on weekends. Since he’s housebound in his apartment, without a weekend delivery from MOW, he has to go without.

      • O-4E says:

        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

      • Ex-PH2 says:

        Please do let us know what gives with that. I’d like to know how they make up the difference when they don’t deliver on weekends. How are those people they visit getting food?

    • Kinda old ET1 says:

      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)

  11. CB Senior says:

    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.

    • Ex-PH2 says:

      Dinosaurs? Look at the difference in size between the apatasaurs and the T. Rexes. The bigger the herbivore, the larger the predator became.
      For a modern comparison, look at the size of a water buffalo compared to a male African lion. Wolf compared to elk or moose.

      Megafauna, whether its Pleistocene epoch or dinosaurs from the Cretaceous, the larger the prey animals are, the larger the predators are. Large herbivores require extensive grazing areas to survive and dinosaurs didn’t live on grass. They ate the larger plants such as trees and bushes, as has been found in coprolites and piles of rocks called dinosaur burps – grist for their gizzards. They were dying off before the end of the Cretaceous, anyway, probably because the largest herbivores (a titanosaur known as Argentinosaurus huinculensis)was nearly 140 ft long and weighed 106 tons. That kind of mass requires a proportional caloric mass intake to support itself. They ate themselves out of house and home.
      The weather changed, too, since continents were shifting around and that changes available food sources, whether its for Pleistocene megafauna mammals like Irish deer and mammoths, or gigantic herbivores like Argentina. If those changes occur, plants that herbivores eat die off as a response, which also contributes to the die-off of those herbivores.

      Also, Antarctica was part of a supercontinental landmass Pangeae, which slowly drifted apart into what we live on now. That is the reason dinosaur fossils have been found there. It sits on the lower end of the Atlantic rift zone, on an active volcanic zone.

  12. 11B-Mailclerk says:

    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 South America and Africa.

    Uninhabitable. Barren.

    Some eco-weirdos do not object to such a thing, preferring “sustainable numbers” that also just kinda happen to include extinction for just about everyone but themselves.

    • Ex-PH2 says:

      I’d like to address this.

      The ‘last one’ was the Toba eruption, right? That theory of genetic reduction was presented in the 1990s and has recently been shown to be incorrect, by artifacts found in India dating from before and after that eruption, and also, by examining a layer of Toba ash in a lake bed in East Africa that showed NO significant temperature drop related to Toba’s eruption.

      Here’s the link to the article for that.

      http://www.livescience.com/29130-toba-supervolcano-effects.html

      In other words, the ‘eureka’ moment has now become more of ‘well, uh, not so much’.

      Also, the Toba eruption took place in the middle of the Sangamon interglacial phase, a WARMING period that lasted approximately 61,000 years, giving humans more than enough time to recover from any devastating losses, and archaeological research, as I pointed out, shows that it was not the ‘bottleneck’ it was supposed to be. It was a blip, not an ice age.

      If humans are so very non-resilient (we’re not) how come we survived three swipes of the Black Death in Europe?

      How come hemorrhagic fever didn’t wipe out all of Greece, instead of just hitting Athens?

      How come ebola has not panned out to be the panic-attack pandemic it was supposed to be?

      How come the world’s population wasn’t wiped out during the Spanish Flu epidemic after World War I?

      Ice ages? The Nebraska Glacial maximum stretched from 470,000 to 330,000 BCE, a length of 140,000 years. Humans survived quite nicely, thank you. In fact, it was during this time that modern humans emerged as the dominant hominid species by incorporating Neaderthals into the family.

      The Waalian interglacial (warming period) preceded the Nebraska GM from 540,000 to 470,000 BCE, a period of 70,000 years. The Aftonian interglacial, after the Nebraska GM, is usually ignored by most glaciologists because it doesn’t amount to much other than showing drifts, glacial kames, and drumlins, but it followed the Nebraska GM from 330,000 to 300,000 BCE, lasting 30,000 years. If we managed to survive that prolonged 170,000 years of ice and increased our numbers and range while we were at it, what makes you think we couldn’t survive another such episode? That’s just silly.

      Uninhabitable? Gee whiz, did it occur to you that humans have been living quite well in what you think is uninhabitable terrain for thousands of years and doing quite well at it? Or do you think those videos of Mongolians following their herds of reindeer and horses are just made up?

      Are you aware that native Yakutians not only live quite well in that part of Siberia and go out in those nasty low temperatures to move the reindeer around, but have a good time doing it?

      Or do you think that native indigenous peoples like the Saami of Finland are just playing in the snow for the cameras?

      For Pete’s sake, even the sahel (Sahara) in Africa is inhabited. Where do you think the Tuareg used to live before they agreed to put down their guns?

      I think we humans have shown quite well how resilient and adaptable we are to just about any event, including the devastating tidal wave that nearly wiped out Ur, and was the source of the Gilgamesh story.

      Venus has a rotational period of 4 days, or maybe more. It has no moon to counter the Sun’s tidal pull. It was not whacked to speed up rotation the way the Earth was. Terraforming Venus (ludicrous) won’t work, period, because the planet is in a state of constant surface renewal.

      Frankly, a bigger opportunity lies off-world, and a return to a glacial maximum will drive the development of warp engines and colonizing EArth-type planets. Since there’s a system not too far away that has seven (7) Earth-sized planets, those are being studied NOW, not for habitability but for their atmospheric contents. Look at the pictures.

      https://www.cnet.com/news/the-milky-way-is-flush-with-habitable-planets-study-says/

      A study is underway to determine which of 77 planets in 40 planetary systems are the most likely to be Earth-like and habitable, with liquid water on the surface. If the calculations used to estimate habitable planets, meaning EArthlike, are correct, the approximate number of planets is 40 billion.

      If you think this doesn’t matter, you need to remember that no matter what else happened, we humans have a long, long history of expanding our territory over and over again, ad nauseum, chasing local people out, overcrowding wherever we were and moving off to more territory.

      WE don’t migrate like ducks, geese, and wildebeest. We simply expand.

      If that isn’t enough, there are 200 billion galaxies (maybe more) in this Universe, and the last measurement showed a distance of 46 billion light years in all directions from one point (Earth), meaning that the size of the Universe is at least 92 billion light years in diameter.

      Okay??? Questions???

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *