From Wattsupwiththat: Bodaprez’s climate ‘funding’ $77 billion(!!) stash has been found and is going to 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.
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.