Trump Supposedly To Announce More Requested Climate Budget Cuts

Will Republicans in Congress cooperate? You can bet Democrats are going to go ape

(Daily Caller) President Donald Trump is looking to cut another $140 million in funding from government-funded global warming science programs, according to

Trump will ask Congress to cut $90 million in funding for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) weather satellite programs and another $50 million from NASA global warming science programs.

The programs slashed include: NOAA’s Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite R (GOES-R), Joint Polar Satellite System (JPSS), and  Earth Observing Nanosatellite-Microwave (EON-MW). These programs all study earth’s climate and measure global warming.

On the one hand, it’s a bad idea to remove the funding, because these satellite programs can show the reality of what is actually happening with the Earth’s climate in direct contradiction to Warmist talking points. On the other hand, the Warmists who work in these programs modify the data to support their un-scientific beliefs.

Regardless, Warmists are very upset when their taxpayer funded cult jobs go away.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

55 Responses to “Trump Supposedly To Announce More Requested Climate Budget Cuts”

  1. Jeffery says:

    these satellite programs can show the reality of what is actually happening with the Earth’s climate in direct contradiction to Warmist talking points.


    As if the Deniers are interested in the truth. LOL.

  2. JGlanton says:

    I suppose then, from Lil Jeffies’ reaction, that he must be a strong supporter if the satellite record of troposphere temperatures.

    I can’t say whether these satellite programs deserve the axe or not. If their predominant premise is based on the unscientific method that dominates climate science, then cut them. GOES satellites have provided a lot if useful information on weather and the atmosphere environment.

    We’re spending something like $12B per year domestically on direct global warming research. Plus billions more in tax credits and international support. There is plenty to cut in a system where the primary outputs are simulated prognostic graphs that have never once been close to the real world when given 5 years of reality.

  3. Jeffery says:


    99% not 97%. Only far-rightists fail to recognize reality.

    Little Glans,

    Of course trumpy et al don’t want any more scientific research. They plan to cut medical research by 25% (Congress will block him). The satellites gather information. Only one climate science group was shown to be pimping bad evidence: Roy Spencer and John Christy at the UA Huntsville admitted that their calculations on satellite data badly underestimated warming. It has since been corrected.

  4. gitarcarver says:

    99% not 97%.

    Who exactly are these people who you say support AGW. Names and positions, please.

    They plan to cut medical research by 25%

    Another lie.

    Cutting the NIH is not cutting medical research.

  5. Jeffery says:

    Do you deny that almost all professional climate scientists support the theory of AGW? There have been several analyses published in the scientific literature suppporting the >97% figure. You want tens of thousands of names and positions, LOL?

    Can you name one professional scientific organization that does NOT support the theory of AGW?

    Good luck. You can start by reviewing some of the scientific literature on the subject.

    TEACH repeats another conspiracy theory. Conspiratorial thinking is diagnostic for the RWA “mind”. Do you think Denier scientists will start getting grants now to “research” global warming?

  6. gitarcarver says:

    Do you deny that almost all professional climate scientists support the theory of AGW?

    You made the claim. Not me.

    Support it.

  7. Jeffery says:

    Do your own schoolwork. Google global warming consensus, you’ll find a at least a dozen papers. Good luck.

    • gitarcarver says:

      Do your own schoolwork.

      Well, as you cannot support your own claim, it is clear that you haven’t done your own “homework.”

      I ask again: “Who are the supposed scientists who make up the alleged 99%?”

  8. Rev.Hoagie® says:

    Google global warming consensus,

    A “global warming consensus” does not constitute proof. If anything it insinuates conspiracy. Especially when they’re all being paid by the same cabal that seeks the “consensus”.

  9. jl says:

    As said before, words like “denier” and “belief” are the verbiage of religion, not science. Which would explain why people like J use it all the time.

  10. jl says:

    “Only one group was shown to be priming bad evidence.” More total bull shit from J. Here’s but on e on many examples.

  11. Jeffery says:


    You mistakenly cited the notrickszone, a Denier website. All his claptrap is rumor, innuendo and defamation.

    You’re not Denying that Christy and Spencer screwed the pooch the first time around on the UAH satellite data are you? They claim it was just a mistake but it was mistake that greatly underestimated actual global warming. It is still used as part of the Denier mythology that satellite data is somehow superior since in its infancy, when the data were improperly manipulated by Christy and Spencer, it underestimated warming.

  12. jl says:

    J translated, again:I can’t refute the data that was posted. I’m shocked. Try this-who not focus on the data, rather than where it was posted. But you can’t, so all you have is “it’s a deniers website.” That says nothing

  13. Jeffery says:


    There is no data to refute only Gosselin’s slick opinions. Actual climate scientists conduct studies and write manuscripts for peer reviewed journals. Gosselin takes dumps. Do you understand how easy pooping is compared to scientific research?

    Gosselin is a proven liar, also caught doctoring photos for his blog. Excuse us if we give him limited attention.

  14. jl says:

    Do you mean Goddard, because I don’t know of a Gosselin? Either way, the second link from Goddard uses NASA graphs, as you can see. The first link was from Paul Homewood, and also uses NASA/NOAA graphs and data. There’s a lot more like that, and they haven’t been refuted. As far as a lier, do you mean like M. Mann, who recently lied in Senate testimony, and also lied about receiving a Nobel Prize?

  15. jl says:

    But if only peer-reviewed will suit you, here’s links to 500 of them from 2016 alone.

  16. Jeffery says:

    Pierre Gosselin runs notrickszone. He is not a scientist and appears to be unemployed.

  17. Jeffery says:

    Pick you favorite Gosselin listed paper and let’s discuss how the finding refutes the accepted theory of AGW.

  18. jl says:

    Funny-“He’s not a scientist”. And he’s not writing the papers.

  19. jl says:

    Another good one-“accepted theory”. Yes, that why all those temperature adjustments that were shown are required. But any of these showing low CO2 sensitivity. After this we’ll go on to hundreds of peer-reviewed papers on the MWP

  20. Jeffery says:

    We can’t discuss 50 papers. Pick your favorite Gosselin paper to discuss how it refutes the accepted theory of AGW, please. Do you want me to select one and show you how it doesn’t prove what Gosselin pretends it does?

    That human generated CO2 is causing the Earth to warm is an accepted theory by scientists. Just as is the cell theory and evolutionary theory. It’s irrational to deny.

  21. Jeffery says:

    One of the papers was an opinion piece masquerading as science written by Sherwood Idso, a so-called skeptic, and president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, a so-called skeptic organization, funded by fossil fuel interests.

  22. drowningpuppies says:

    Curious to see the little guy discuss Mann’s Hockey Stick paper…

  23. Jeffery says:

    More than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, have supported the broad consensus shown in the original 1998 hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century “shaft” appears. The 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report cited 14 reconstructions, 10 of which covered 1,000 years or longer, to support its strengthened conclusion that it was likely that Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the 20th century were the highest in at least the past 1,300 years. Over a dozen subsequent reconstructions, including Mann et al. 2008 and PAGES 2k Consortium 2013, have supported these general conclusions.

    In fact, the Earth has warmed abruptly over the past century or so.

    • drowningpuppies says:

      Thanks for more of your bullshit, little guy.
      Mann’s hockey stick was completely discredited and you know it. No reputable scientist ever refers to Mann’s paper as source material.

  24. jl says:

    All kinds of data refuting the hockey stick. For humor, listen to Steyn

  25. jl says:

    In fact you have no proof the earth warmed “abruptly”. Abruptly compared to what?

  26. jl says:

    “Paper written by a skeptic, funded by fossil fuel interests.” As in “the paper was wrtten by an alarmist organization, funded by government interests.” You’re not very self-aware are you, J, that you make the case for the other side very often? Probably not, but it’s humorous nonetheless .

  27. Jeffery says:

    Really? You rely on the Hockey Schtick AND NoTricksZone for your scientific information? Add in WUWT and you’ll lose all your IQ! We’ll get to the climatedepot in a minute.

    The Hockey Schtick is just another crapweasel site spouting pseudoscience. Here’s just one example:

    Regarding a paper entitled “Emergent Model for Predicting the Average Surface Temperature of Rocky Planets with Diverse Atmospheres”:

    According to the site (Hockey Schtick), this paper added “to the works of at least 40 others (partial list below) who have falsified the Arrhenius radiative theory of catastrophic global warming from increased levels of CO2… ”

    Blogger Lee Tennant did something that the “intrepid science reporter”, the Hockey Schmuck, neglected to do – she wrote the paper’s author, Dr. Den Volokin and asked, “I was interested to read today that you had published research that apparently ‘overturned Arrhenius radiative theory of warming due to greenhouse gas emissions’. I was, as you can imagine, quite astonished that such an amazing overturning of physics had gone unreported. I am nothing more than an interested laymen, but am curious as to whether you would agree with this interpretation of your paper?

    Dr. Volokin responded:

    The paper we published in Advances in Space Research entitled “Emergent Model for Predicting the Average Surface Temperature of Rocky Planets with Diverse Atmospheres” does not really make any such claims. We simply present an empirical model derived from observed data that can predict quite accurately the mean annual temperature of planetary bodies across a broad range of atmospheric and radiative environments. The paper offers no discussion about the Greenhouse Theory, nor does it elaborates much on the theoretical implications of our results. There is much more research to be done before any big theoretical claims can be justified … Internet blogs oftentimes choose to exaggerate and/or distort the content of scientific articles in order to promote their own agendas. For example, the Hockey Schtick website, where you saw our paper, makes the following claim:
    “… the paper adds to the works of at least 40 others (partial list below) who have falsified the Arrhenius radiative theory of catastrophic global warming from increased levels of CO2, and also thereby demonstrated that the Maxwell/Clausius/Carnot/Boltzmann/Feynman atmospheric mass/gravity/pressure greenhouse theory is instead the correct explanation of the 33C greenhouse effect on Earth” .

    Nowhere in our article do we state that the atmospheric thermal effect (a.k.a. greenhouse effect) is 33C! In fact, a previous paper of ours published last December specifically argues that the 33 C greenhouse effect is incorrect, since it’s based on a mathematically wrong formula. In our 2014 paper, we show that the thermal effect of Earth’s atmosphere is in fact about 90 C. The present paper builds on these findings. So, the statement made by HS is factually inaccurate and theoretically misleading!

    Do you figure that Dr. Volokin is just an insider in the communist conspiracy and knows LESS about his own research than the Hockey Schmuck? Of course you do. Your anti-theory of AGW is not falsifiable since you assume all the scientists are on the take from Big Climate.

  28. Jeffery says:

    climatedepot is penned by former SwiftBoater Marc Morano, who previously worked for Rush Limbaugh, the Republican Party and Jim Inhofe.

    The job of the likes of Morano (depot), Gosselin (zone) and the Schmuck is to confuse. We know Morano’s motivation for spreading disinformation and we can guess that Gosselin and the Schmuck just like the notoriety amongst the low information, anti-science minority.

    The Earth’s temperature took an abrupt uptick and the most likely reason is CO2, not a warming Sun, not the effect of gravity on heat (the Schmuck), not cosmic rays (Roy Spencer), not undersea volcanoes (The Cove)… For every paper that a Gosselin or Schmuck cite that either refutes (or more likely they misinterpret) there are 100s that support the theory of AGW. You may not like “scientific consensus”, but to actual working scientists that is how science works. If 100 different scientists conduct the same study and 97 get similar results, that’s consensus. The Deniers pimp the 3 studies, but not for reasons related to science.

    • drowningpuppies says:

      The Earth’s temperature took an abrupt uptick

      Care to elaborate on “abrupt”, little guy?
      Keep digging that hole, dumbass.

  29. Jeffery says:

    Abruptly, and without warning, the temperature started to increase! Over the past century it has increased nearly 1C, which is a lot when compared to the temperature range during the Holocene epoch, that time period when the whole of human civilization developed and evolved!

    It’s most likely that the current warming period is warmer than at any time in the Holocene!

    So why the abrupt and rapid increase? Much of it is from CO2 added to the atmosphere since the beginning of the industrial revolution. CO2 has been rising since the 1800s.

    • drowningpuppies says:

      which is a lot when compared to the temperature range during the Holocene epoch,

      Define “a lot”, little guy.
      Keep digging that hole, dumbass.

    • drowningpuppies says:

      It’s most likely that the current warming period is warmer than at any time in the Holocene!

      Little guy’s reaching again.
      Keep digging, dumbass.

  30. jl says:

    So in other words you can’t refute a thing in those papers, other than disparaging where they came from. I’m shocked. Data is data-either it can be refuted or it can’t. Then u fall back to the tired old “we have more guys on our side so we win” argument. How very scientific. And again, you have no idea how abruptly the temperature changed, except for the last 150 yrs ago. You have no idea how fast it changed in other 150 yr periods because….there were no thermometers back then. That was hard to understand, wasn’t it? Can’t compare temp changes of millenniums to a 150 yr periods because paleo records can’t compare to thermometer records.

  31. jl says:

    “Morano used to work for…..” You can’t be that stupid to write something like that, could you? I guess so. Did who Morano used to work for have anything to do with the data put forth on his blog? No. Jeffery does more tap dancing around the truth because instead of refuting data he resorts to guilt by association. Which isn’t any guilt at all. Consensus? There isn’t one and it wouldn’t mean a thing, anyway. “A thousand experiments can’t prove me right but one can prove me wrong.” Einstein. Why not try explaining that consensus thing to Einstein if he were here, ok J? Good luck and keep trying

  32. Jeffery says:


    We didn’t read all the papers, many are protected by subscription. We doubt that Gosselin paid $39 for each article either, so it’s likely he didn’t read them either. Obviously you haven’t.

    In science, consensus is everything. Sorry if you don’t understand. For every “skeptic” paper “proving” the Earth can’t be warming there are 100 showing that it is. You are correct that a single refutation of a main limb of a major theory can falsify the theory. So far, that has not occurred regarding the theory of AGW. That’s not to say that scientists (not lobbyists, strategists or political bloggers) won’t discover a reason other than CO2 causing the current period of rapid warming, it just gets more and more unlikely with each passing year.

    Can you tell us the precision of the proxy measurements? Would they detect a 1C change over 100 years? Get back with the answer please. You are going to be surprised, we think.

    Morano is a lobbyist. Are you too stupid to understand that fine point? He’s a conservative strategist for gawd sake! He went from Swiftboating Senator Kerry to Denying global warming. Why should anyone listen to a gawddamn word that that shill utters???

    The best evidence available supports the theory that human generated CO2 is causing the Earth to warm, and that the current warming period is likely the warmest in the past 12,000 years (Holocene).

    You trust Pierre Gosselin, Marc Morano, the Hockey Schmuck and Anthony Watts but they are lying to you. Their interpretations of real science are dishonest.

    We’re sorry that this makes you so angry. That happens to some people when evidence does not support their ideology.

    • david7134 says:

      You don’t know anything about science. So quit acting like you do. Consensus has nothing to do with science except in pushing a theory. You follow the scientific method or you have nothing, and you have nothing. All it takes is one counter to your material and your theory is out.

  33. Jeffery says:

    The extent of the increase in temperature (~1C) the past century is likely greater than the entire temperature range of the Holocene (after the warming from the last glacial period).

  34. Jeffery says:


    We know more than you, so quit acting like we don’t. But you are correct that a theory can be falsified when even one leg is cut. But since theories can never be formally proven, only falsified, how do scientists decide when a theory is more likely to be correct than not?

    Just as with biological evolution, the accumulated evidence supports the theory of AGW. And please don’t tell us you don’t accept the theory of evolution either.

    Please present the evidence that refutes the theory of AGW. It should be easy. j has linked to hundreds of papers that bloggers claim refute various aspects of the theory but no one can describe in a sentence or two the evidence to refute the theory.

    So of course consensus is important in science. After evaluating the available evidence most scientists accept that human-generated CO2 is causing the current warm period.

  35. jl says:

    Jeffery again can’t disprove the data given to him, so he attacks the messengers. It’s all he has. He attacks Morano, but most posts on Morano’s site are posted by other people. He attacks Gosselin, but Gosselin’s site has links to hundreds of peer-reviewed articles not written by Gosselin. He attacks Watts, but again most articles at his site are published by other people, and even they weren’t it wouldn’t disprove a thing. “Every skeptic paper proving the earth can’t be warming there are a hundred that says it is.” Skeptic papers don’t prove the earth isn’t warming, it’s the amount of the warming and the cause of the warming that they dispute. But nice try. But back to the “more guys on our side” argument. Consensus has nothing to do with science. Many huge scientific discoveries have been made made scientists disputing the consensus. Ergo, consensus is Irrelevant. “1 degree temp. change during Holocene..” Bullshit. You cannot compare thermometer records with paleo records, sorry. And why just use the Holocene? In other words, you’d have to know the rate of themp. changes for all hundred yr periods , not just during the Holocene. Which of course no one does. Hence, impossible to say “fastest rate.” As far skeptic papers not refuting a theory that hasn’t been proven, of course they do. The show evidence of other causes of warming, or show evidence of low CO2 sensitivity. For the the theory of GW to hold true, there would have to be zero evidence of other causes within those papers. But of course there’s all kinds of evidence.

  36. jl says:

    Just for J, here’s a nice little graph showing the amount of papers coming out showing very low CO2 sensitivity compared to others in the past.

Pirate's Cove