US House of Representatives kills IPCC funding

Hopelessly biased

A small victory for common sense. The US House of Representatives has voted to strip the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change of its funding for the remainder of 2011. As Science magazine reports, the climatologists aren’t happy:

Last night the U.S. House of Representatives agreed to cut off funding for the rest of 2011 for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. “My constituents should not have to continue to foot the bill for an organization to keep producing corrupt findings that can be used as justification to impose a massive new energy tax on every American,” said Representative Blaine Leutkemeyer (R-MO), the sponsor of the measure, in floor debate before the vote. Leutkemeyer said in a press release that his amendment, which passed 244 to 179 largely along partisan lines, represented “a victory for taxpayers.”

Asked about the vote, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration head Jane Lubchenco said she disagreed with the House’s action. “Science should not be partisan. [Tell that to the consensus boys, Jane – Ed] It is highly unfortunate that in many cases it is,” she said. The spending measure, which would fund the government for the rest of 2011, now goes to the Senate, which disagrees with many portions of the bill.

“It’s a real tragedy that the issue is so poorly understood that it doesn’t have the support I think it deserves given how important it is,” says Stanford ecologist Chris Field, the lead author on one of three IPCC working groups [and an old friend of ACM – see here – despite $70 billion spent on brainwashing the public, it’s still “poorly understood”? – Ed]. The House doesn’t “like the message so they are killing the messenger,” says climate scientist Mike MacCracken, former director of the U.S. Global Change Research Program. (source)

Feel sorry for them yet? No, neither do I. And Dr Roy Spencer points out a few home truths about why this happened:

The climate change deniers have no one but themselves to blame for last night’s vote.

I’m talking about those who deny NATURAL climate change. Like Al Gore, John Holdren, and everyone else who thinks climate change was only invented since they were born.

Politicians formed the IPCC over 20 years ago with an endgame in mind: to regulate CO2 emissions. I know, because I witnessed some of the behind-the-scenes planning. It is not a scientific organization. It was organized to use the government-funded scientific research establishment to achieve policy goals.

Now, that’s not necessarily a bad thing. But when they are portrayed as representing unbiased science, that IS a bad thing. If anthropogenic global warming – and ocean ‘acidification’ (now there’s a biased and totally incorrect term) — ends up being largely a false alarm, those who have run the IPCC are out of a job. More on that later.

I don’t want to be misunderstood on this. IF we are destroying the planet with our fossil fuel burning, then something SHOULD be done about it.

But the climate science community has allowed itself to be used on this issue, and as a result, politicians, activists, and the media have successfully portrayed the biased science as settled.

They apparently do not realize that ‘settled science’ is an oxymoron.

The most vocal climate scientists defending the IPCC have lost their objectivity. Yes, they have what I consider to be a plausible theory. But they actively suppress evidence to the contrary, for instance attempts to study natural explanations for recent warming.

That’s one reason why the public was so outraged about the ClimateGate e-mails. ClimateGate doesn’t prove their science is wrong…but it does reveal their bias. Science progresses by investigating alternative explanations for things. Long ago, the IPCC all but abandoned that search.

Read it all.


  1. Mark Weiss via Facebook says:

    After digging out from this winter, anyone would be nuts to even THINK global warming was a problem. I welcome it with open windows and doors.

  2. How many times can I hit the like button?

  3. Walter Hawthorne via Facebook says:


  4. The Loaded Dog says:


    I guess we can expect to see this important story reported on the ABC soon too huh?


  5. Finally hells yess

  6. The Loaded Dog says:

    This the ABC’s attempt at covering this story?

    Not one word about the IPCC.

    What a surprise.

  7. What’s the big deal? They keep telling us the “science is settled”, so why would anyone want to spend more money junketing around the world, staying in flash tropical resorts, writing ever more dire reports? Surely the money can be better spent elsewhere?

  8. The IPCC has the climate change of carbon dioxide backwards. Just like Al Gore did with his “Inconvenient Truth” documentary when he said about the Vostok Ice Core data, that a CO2 increase came first that made the earth temperature to rise. It was just the opposite, a temperature increase came first, the oceans got warmer followed by an increased release of CO2 from the oceans to the atmosphere due to decreased solubility.

    Actually carbon dioxide causes a slight cooling effect. Its concentration in the atmosphere is only around 400 ppmv compared to water vapor that can be as high as 4%, at that level around 1% of that for water vapor. It was proved after 9-11 that contrails cause cooling. With grounded air traffic (no contrails) the temperature actually increased 1 degrees centigrade for the 3 days planes were grounded compared to the 3 day temperatures before and after the grounding.

    It ain’t rocket science; all clouds of water vapor shade the earth and cool it during the day. At night a cloud covered sky keeps the earth from cooling off as fast (insulating effect). However, the cooling effect during the day dwarfs the slight warming at night.

    With a slight increase of CO2 in the atmosphere the cooling effect is there but it is so small one could not measure it. When this truth becomes widely known, will people start another campaign to eliminate CO2 because it cools the earth ever so slightly?

    As Wil says above; this climate change crap was always only about the money; there is no real science associated with it. Al Gore and David Blood of Goldman Sachs started Generation Investment Management in 2004 and in 2008 had $5 billion dollars in investments. It is a shame what has gone on but the world is waking up to the “Big Lie”.

  9. Paul Bennett says:

    Typical pro climate warning pro gay rights gaybc they follow so called “exact science” which is an oxymoron at a whim just like the rest of Australia’s mainstream media.


  1. […] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Paul Bennett, Simon from Sydney. Simon from Sydney said: US House of Representatives kills IPCC funding: A small victory for common sense. The US House of Representative… […]

%d bloggers like this: