Cutting funding to science is a victory for science: yes, Orwell is spinning in his grave

1950s BBC production of 1984 (1 hour 47 minutes)

In the US, the Republicans are proposing to slash US contributions to the IPCC.

Climate Depot, the blog run by the odious March Morano declares it a “victory for science“:

Defund IPCC ‘amendment was sponsored by Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-Missouri), who read aloud on the floor from the 2009 U.S. Senate Report of more than 700 dissenting scientists! (Written by Climate Depot’s Morano)

Note how the report quoted was written by Morano. No connection between industry funded think tanks and climate scepticism at all. Really, just a co-incidence.

When a major political party ignores the world’s scientific community and prefers the words of a spin doctor, you know something is amiss.

The text of the amendment reads thus:

Amendment No. 149—Rep. Luetkemeyer (R-MO):  The amendment would prohibit any funds made available in this Act from being used for contributions to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Of course this news is trumpeted by Perth’s resident denier, Jo Nova:

The US contribution directly to the IPCC is only $2.3 million, and the loss of that would just shorten the two week annual junket by a few hours. But the turnaround in attitude is telling. This wouldn’t have happened two years ago. The Republicans are letting the nation know they are serious.

A majority of the research of the IPCC comes from US institutes and organizations. When this new attitude spreads to the direction of research grants, “PR” units, and to other nations, it could really start to bite. Imagine if the US congress started to fund independent audits, or solar-driven-climate research, or more satellite data collection?

How much money does the IPCC get?

The total budget for the IPCC is $10.5 million USD. The Republicans are seeking to deprive the IPCC of $2.5 million.

Within my organisation I run two departments with a combined budget equivalent to what the US gives the IPCC.

Seriously, I laughed hard when I read that.

This is chicken feed.

The IPCC produces consensus reports. It does no research.

“You can’t stop the signal”

Even if you shut the IPCC down tomorrow you can’t stop science. The results will still be there. The only way to stop the science is to censor scientists.

Is this next?

Future, smuture!

To my mind this is like the RAF in 1939 deciding that “radar thing” was a waste of money”. After all it was mostly unproven, new technology and expensive to implement and maintain.

After all, hadn’t “Peace in our time” just been declared?

The threat of German planes flying over London was just a remote possibility.

The climate has always changed. The climate is not changing.

So in the deniers minds cutting funding to science is a victory for science?

And burning books is a victory for literacy.

And depriving women of the vote is a victory for democracy.

And war is peace.

Yes, George Orwell is spinning very fast in his grave.

“The climate has always changed; therefore the climate is not changing now”.

21 thoughts on “Cutting funding to science is a victory for science: yes, Orwell is spinning in his grave

  1. Sou says:

    Ah but if we don’t know about it, then it won’t happen, will it. And when it does go really bad, we can blame the scientists for not warning us. /s.

    • Watching the Deniers says:

      I fully expect the deniers to start shrieking “WHY DIDN’T YOU WARN US!”

    • fredorth says:

      I wouldn’t be suprised if we see some of this panic before the end of 2013.

      • Watching the Deniers says:

        Pretty much.

        … geoengineering and nuclear.

        I can already see the think tank and Andrew Bolt articles of the future.

        “Why do the greens hate nuclear and managing the climate?”

  2. Nick says:

    Triumph of the dimwits!

    Codling asks” Imagine if the US Congress started to fund independent audits,solar-driven climate research or more satellite data collection?”

    No need to imagine,Jo…they already do.

  3. If restricting funding doesn’t work, I suspect the republicans will repeat the Salem witch trials with Pachauri probably the first at the stake.. it’s pitiful where the US seems to be going.

  4. Berbalang says:

    Perhaps we could hook George Orwell’s body up to a generator and use the denier rhetoric as a carbon free source of power.

  5. It really is spooky… how do you talk to a Creationist?

    Religious folk got no room for other ideas.

    I bring up the religious thing because that is the backbone holding up most of those reactionary Republicans.
    Cut every science and social program in sight, but keep the war machine at 100%… way to go big guys.

    … ranting for Orwell 😉

  6. elsa says:

    “To my mind this is like the RAF in 1939 deciding that “radar thing” was a waste of money”. After all it was mostly unproven, new technology and expensive to implement and maintain. After all, hadn’t “Peace in our time” just been declared?
    The threat of German planes flying over London was just a remote possibility.”

    Whatever your views on climate this take on the RAF is complete rubbish. I happen to know a guy, aged 92, now living in the UK who worked on radar in 1939. Much of the research was moved to New Zealand where he was as it was safer there from prying German eyes.

  7. john byatt says:

    Reminds me of a poster at steve fieldings blog, ADMRICH,
    “there are ten of my friends looking over my shoulder agreeing with me”
    ” I asked six workmates and they believe you are wrong ‘

    The best though was whenever ridley was on a blog complaining that someone was impersonating him, ADMRICH always seemed to turn up and solve the mystery

    apparently ridley now calls himself “the ferret’

    does not know the Australian context of “give the ferret a run”

  8. john byatt says:

    Yep, “and everywhere that ridley went
    the ADMRICH was sure to go ”

    and still does

    Anonymous said…

    Don’t forget that Cooloola indicated being actively involved/engaged with the Australian Greens & manned a polling booth on the last elections last year for them.

    February 20, 2011 10:43 PM {TSC}

  9. elsa says:

    I suppose I should not be surprised that Moth and Mr Byatt make their usual style of remarks even when the subject is the RAF not warming. At least there was nothing about vaccinations, which marks something of a first from Moth. Interesting that while he writes above and adds nothing to the debate, he has still not answered the two questions which if answered would give his claims to science some authority. Interesting too that Mr Byatt in spite of many comments has been 100% silent about whether he is prepared to admit that the warmist view cannot pass the Popper test of a science, although he has in effect conceded the point.
    Turning to the discussion topic proper rather than the RAF I think we should be very pleased that the IPCC is having its funding cut. It seems a very strange way to advance science to set up an intergovernmental body to discuss any scientific topic. We do not have an intergovernmental panel on cancer cures for example yet the drugs have developed in this area far more successfully than the “science” of climate change. Whereas in most fields science advances by having competing views one or more of which may prove fruitful with climate we seem to have taken the odd decision to set up a body to review the science and then decide on a consensus. It is hard to think of any other science developing by consensus and peer review as opposed to disagreement, debate and competition of ideas. It also seems to me very 1984ish to get government funding in science. It leads inevitably to the government deciding what scientists ought to do, how they should do it and even what the outcomes of the science ought to be. As James Lovelock put it “You can make mistakes; they’re helpful. In the old days, it was perfectly OK to make a mistake and say so. You often learned from it. Nowadays if you’re dependent on a grant – and 99% of them are – you can’t make mistakes as you won’t get another one if you do. It’s an awful moral climate”

    • I swear Elsa, either you’re paid to troll around the net, spreading nonsense, while signing on as a number of sock puppets to support yourself or else you’re just a bored lonely person with internet access who found yourself a way to get attention..

  10. “I suppose I should not be surprised that Moth and Mr Byatt make their usual style of remarks…”

    And why I not surprised that you’ve continued you ridiculous attack on reason no matter how often you’re proven to be wrong?

    You’re comments are not even worth reading.

    • elsa says:

      All you need to do is answer the two questions. There is no need to talk about trolls, sock puppets, lonely people, vaccinations, god, creationism, evolution etc etc which are all just diversions and enable you to talk without keeping to the point. Answer the questions satisfactorily and I will concede and go away. Avoid them and I will go on and on and on.

  11. john byatt says:

    Elsa, do you ever get anything correct? the congress ,republican majority has voted for that, it now goes to the senate, democrat majority, then the president can veto it anyway,
    the funding cut if passed would be $2.3M , i have already emailed combet to suggest that australia make up the short fall and shame the baskets

    no really , i hope the US does, what a coup for the aussies, bailing out the yanks

  12. elsa says:

    No answer to the questions then Moth and John?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: