Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« Windfarm | Main | Busy again »
Thursday
Mar012012

US Government Climate Change spend 2011 vs Heartland - Josh 153

Fakegate showed how small the Heartland Institute budget is compared to spending on Climate Change science. Here is just one example using US Government figures. I thought a simple graphic would be more helpful than a cartoon here.

Click the image for a bigger version.

Cartoons by Josh

 

 

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (70)

Good work Josh. A picture is worth more than a thousand words.

Mar 1, 2012 at 6:51 PM | Unregistered Commentereyesonu

"I thought a simple graphic would be more helpful than a cartoon here."

You thought correctly. I'm amazed how much better you are at getting the sceptic message across than, say, many scientists, who typically take ten pages to say what you've expressed in one.

Mar 1, 2012 at 7:12 PM | Unregistered Commenterjorgekafkazar

I recall reading that "fossil fuel subsidies" included the subsidies that eg Saudi Arabia and Iran pay to ensure the local populace stay happy and can fill up their monster trucks for 23p.

Mar 1, 2012 at 7:27 PM | Unregistered Commenterwoodentop

Filling up your car with petrol at 23p a litre in the Middle East is not because of subsidy but because there is no tax on it. Its expensive elsewhere because of taxes - and remember there is nothing worse than giving a sanctimonious politician (or a green activist) what they think is a morally justifiable reason for a tax.

Mar 1, 2012 at 7:49 PM | Unregistered CommenterThinkingScientist

@TS

I meant filling up the entire tank for 23p (an entirely plucked-from-the-air figure to make a point).

A cursory search of the internet reveals the following mention of Iranian pump prices a year or so ago...

Iran previously had two prices for petrol, with motorists allocated a quota of 60 litres (16 gallons) of petrol per month at a subsidised price of 10 US cents per litre. Beyond this quota, they had to pay 40 cents a litre.

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-530498

Mar 1, 2012 at 8:18 PM | Unregistered Commenterwoodentop

Josh,
That will make a great poster for our worldwide campaign when we cash all those billions Big Oil has been promising us.

Mar 1, 2012 at 8:39 PM | Unregistered CommenterJohn in France

Josh; good work as ever.

Given the entire AGW claims are *supposed* to be about the CO2, would it be an idea to run this visual treat again, this time represennting a few of the main arguments as actually put forward by the alarmists?

All atmospheric CO2 v the rest of the atmosphere: 0.04% v 99.96%
Man made CO2 v natural CO2 v the atmosphere : 3% of 0.04% v 99.96%
Difference between todays man made C02 and the revised 1990 level: ???

Someone else pointed out that if we use a 100 yard US gridiron pitch as representing earths atmosphere, then ALL todays C02 is equivalent to the 4' goal line!

Then represent the human element - 3% of 0.04%.

Then factor in the '1990' revised target which allows for 1990 level emissions. That will allow a furtther cut in the emission level of C02.

THAT difference is what we're paying all our billions for.

We're now at a rather tiny line.

Mar 1, 2012 at 8:44 PM | Unregistered CommenterCheshireRed

Funding for global warming alarmists: trillions
Funding for global warming skeptics: millions
The truth: priceless

Mar 1, 2012 at 9:17 PM | Unregistered CommenterBMF

This is truly disturbing.

http://www.ceres.org/incr/news/investors-representing-13-trillion-call-on-u.s.-and-other-countries-to-move-quickly-to-adopt-strong-climate-change-policies

It does not include the pension funds of the BBC and 500 other organizations, mostly UK and US academia.

Mar 1, 2012 at 10:05 PM | Unregistered CommenterKate60

Just three months ago

http://climatequotes.com/2011/01/29/nearly-100-climate-education-programs-funded-by-nasa-noaa-nsf-epa/

Mar 1, 2012 at 10:07 PM | Unregistered CommenterKate60

Having a look back at the NERC website as I still believe they are the major funding agency in the UK came across a science summary from 2006

http://www.nerc.ac.uk/about/consult/debate/climatechange/summary.asp#greenhouse

I could question lots of the statements here that are written as if they are fact, but picking out the 'hockey stick' mention I can't believe they say

"There are records of the global mean temperature over the past 1000 years, which are inferred from proxies such as tree-rings and stalactites. These show that the temperature has varied throughout the last millennium, but have never climbed as high as current levels when averaged over periods such as 50 years. The "mediaeval warm period" (around 1000 AD) and the "little ice age" (around 1650 AD) are examples of these variations. There are many different published studies, all of which reach the conclusion that recent period of higher global temperatures are unprecedented. There have been comments, repeated from elsewhere on the internet, suggesting that one of these studies by Michael Mann is scientifically flawed - in an attempt to discredit this conclusion. A US National Academy of Sciences report found that overall the conclusions of that study were sound although some statements about temperatures in particular years, for example, were not warranted."

Just go to the co2science website to see "There are many different published studies, all of which reach the conclusion that recent period of higher global temperatures are unprecedented" is rubbish.

It is also good to see that our major funding agency think the Mann's paper had sound conclusions. It seems like they might not question the scientists they give money to much then.

Mar 1, 2012 at 10:33 PM | Unregistered CommenterRob Burton

Nice visual!! .... except that HI doesn't spend anywhere near $6.5 million per year related to climate anything. Most of their budget is for non-climate issues (other kinds of policy issues). The current figures for climate related spending were well under $1 million IIRC, although in a couple of past years they had gotten above $1 million when they had more donations..... but never anywhere near $5-6 million per year on climate....

Mar 1, 2012 at 11:01 PM | Unregistered CommenterSkiphil

@Skiphil Mar 1, 2012 at 11:01 PM

Nice visual!! .... except that HI doesn't spend anywhere near $6.5 million per year related to climate anything.

Not only that, but according to no less an authority than Peter <Mr. Transparency and Integrity> Gleick, the BIGGEST problem is that :

institute and its donors benefit from major tax breaks at the expense of the public.

This being the case, unless the "tax breaks" exceed the donations (which I very much doubt, somehow), then the graphic for Heartland should be even smaller in comparison. IOW ... it's worse than we thought ;-)

P.S. It's a great graph Josh!

Mar 1, 2012 at 11:23 PM | Unregistered CommenterHilary Ostrov

In all their collective wisdom has the BBC ever reported objectively on the funding differences enjoyed by the CAGW crowd.

Oh wait, how would that effect the retirement fund. The news may leak that much of the fund is invested in CAGW. Talk about a vested interest. Not publicly.

The little people must continue to pay for the gravy train so that they can be told how important it is to be protected from themselves. And so the chips will continue to be stacked for the circle argument where the beginning and the end is blurred, good is bad, cold is hot, wet is dry, down is up, forgery is not really forgery, etc. The biggest problem is that the fools want those not so foolish to pay for their foolish fool cult beliefs.

Mar 1, 2012 at 11:52 PM | Unregistered Commentereyesonu

OT, but still relevant, I believe:
The choice made by Donna Laframboise in naming her expose of IPCC and climate science “The Delinquent Teenager” turns out to be ingenious. What better way to describe a bunch of over privileged, spoiled brats who think far too highly of themselves and far too little of the common decency and scruples that mark responsible adults? We now see Lacis and Trenberth pretending it was all just a prank. Trenberth actually says this will increase Gleick’s status in the ‘climate concerned’ world. There is something deeply wrong with what passes for leadership in the climate science/AGW community. The warning signs, from Donna’s book, to climategate, to Gleick and his community’s reaction to it all show a movement that has been out of control for awhile. Few scruples. A lost moral compass. Acceptance of criminal acts. How many other bad choices have climate scientists made but simply not gotten busted on?

Mar 1, 2012 at 11:55 PM | Unregistered Commenterhunter

Yeah but we all know how much taxpayer money is wasted so the hearltand funds probably are the equivilent of all that Govt money in terms of effectiveness. How much is Hansen paid again?

Mar 2, 2012 at 12:01 AM | Unregistered Commentermike

I think the drawing would look better on a scale, one viewed by a scientist, with the greater number of coins tipped down, and the other viewed by a climate scientist using adjusted data, with the partial coin tipped down.

Mar 2, 2012 at 5:22 AM | Unregistered Commenterharry

@Hunter Mar 1, 2012 at 11:55 PM

We now see Lacis and Trenberth pretending it was all just a prank. [emphasis added -hro]

Hmmm ... "just a prank", eh? How in the name of Gaia would they know?! Or have they arbitrarily decided to redefine "prank"?!

But that aside ... when was the last time I heard that little bit of "revisionism"?

Yes ... I remember, now! On Feb. 4/2010, according to a quartet of "journalists" at the Guardian - who would never attempt to deceive or mislead readers - Good ol' Gav had used "sort of a prank" as the latest and greatest incarnation of his ever-changing story regarding the key events of Nov. 17, 2009.

Trenberth actually says this will increase Gleick’s status in the ‘climate concerned’ world.

Perhaps there's new PNAS paper in the works - authored by Trenberth, Lacis and other high profile prophets of "climate concern" - in which the measurement of "Gleick's status" becomes the designated new, improved (upside-down) proxy for temperature. Thereby assuring place of honour for the resurrected "hockey-stick" as an icon to impress upon the masses the need for "sustainable development" which - in accordance with Pachauri's "vision" - will "pervade" all 3 WGs' reports in AR5.

Mar 2, 2012 at 6:46 AM | Unregistered CommenterHilary Ostrov

$290 Billion is my rough estimate of the USG's spending on Climate
since 1958 the start of Dr Revelle's and Keelings co2 curve research.
The rest of the world has spent about the same amount -- so about
$600 Billion all totaled. Naomi Oreskes places Denier spending at
$19 Million over several years!

290,000 millions USA
600,000 milliions World Wide
.........19 million by corporations and deniers

Now that is very interesting.........

AB

Mar 5, 2012 at 10:59 PM | Unregistered CommenterAblevins

Total USG outlays for FY2010

$23.529 BILLION For One Year

I may have too revise upward the previous figures
which were based on $10 Billion per year!

-AB


Page 4

Table 1
Summary of Federal Climate Change Expenditures
FY 2011 BudgetJune 2010 Fiscal Year 2011 Report to Congress on Federal Climate Changes Expenditures (37 pages, 389 kb)
www.omb.whitehouse.gov

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/FY2011_Climate_Change.pdf

Mar 8, 2012 at 11:35 PM | Unregistered CommenterAblevins

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>