Climate Change Funding : More Research for More Money

This all seems of straight forward to me - the report, National Climate Assessment Report, is an attack on common sense, but our government leaders can't say it makes no sense because they believe it will endanger the reelection. They also know if they don't toe the line, they will be attacked by the environmentalist as being unaware of the disaster that is climate change. They will be made to look stupid.

In some aspects they are correct, the general public is clueless on climate change, global warming, but has a tendency to believe what ever the 'smartest people in the room', Washington elites, declare to be the truth as actually being the truth. How absurd is that. Maybe clueless isn't the best word to describe those that believe in Washington's elites, maybe stupid is a better, like most politicians.

Even in the face of over whelming evidence contrary to what the environmentalists declare as a coming disaster, green house gases and a warming planet, the money keeps flowing out of taxpayer pockets to fund more out right fabrications and lies, solely for the purpose of obtaining more money for their bogus research.

For decades the environmentalists have driven the narrative of climate change as a disaster for the planet, declaring if the people don't fund more research we are all doomed. Little wonder then why the politicos are on board with funding more and more reports and research declaring more disaster. It makes sense as to why the people will demand more funding, they don't want to die, right? Scientists don't lie.

Maybe the right thing to do is instead of 10's of billions, spend 100's of billions for research to produce more reports of still more disaster.

Climate Change Science Is Biased
Source: Patrick J. Michaels, "'My Scientists Made Me Shrink Your Car': How Government Scientists Plunder the Till in the Name of Science," Washington Times, May 28, 2013.
June 5, 2013

The majority of developed nations fund research scientists and rely on them for policy guidance. It is in the best interest of these government-funded scientists to ensure their fields, and therefore their jobs, are deemed of great importance, says Patrick J. Michaels, the director of the Center for the Study of Science at the Cato Institute.

This is a problem, however, when it comes to environmental science.

• In the United States, government-funded scientists are required to produce a National Climate Assessment every four years.
• The assessment is produced by the U.S. Global Change Research Program, a 13-agency behemoth with multibillion-dollar annual funding.
• Under its empowering legislation, the assessments are "for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for use in the formulation of a coordinated national policy on global climate change."

The research program and the individuals who write such reports are the largest consumers of federal largesse on climate science. Would they ever produce a report saying that their issue is of diminishing importance, so that EPA regulations of greenhouse gases are simply not needed? No, not unless they are tired of first-class travel and the praise of their universities, which are hopelessly addicted to the 50 percent "overhead" they charge on science grants.
The perils of science-by-government-funded-committee became apparent in the first assessment in 2000. The models they used were worse than no forecast at all.

• The U.S. Global Change Research Program's computer models were given a multiple-choice test with 100 questions and four possible answers each. Simply spitting out random numbers would, within statistical limits, get around 1 out of 4 (25 percent) correct.
• The initial assessment, however, would get only 1 out of 8 answers correct (12.5 percent), essentially performing twice as badly as a random series of numbers.
• The research program was aware of this problem but published its report anyway.
• The reigning assessment is the 2009 version, which has been considered authoritative and is largely the basis for the EPA's greenhouse gas regulations.

Later this year, government science goes international with the release of the next Scientific Assessment of Climate Change by the United Nations body that tracks the issue. It suffers from the same problem as the draft research program document, because the same people produced both reports. It, too, will serve as the basis for policy, and it, too, will be obsolete the day it is published.
Source: Patrick J. Michaels, "'My Scientists Made Me Shrink Your Car': How Government Scientists Plunder the Till in the Name of Science," Washington Times, May 28, 2013.