Where have all of our 'Man-did-it' global warming tax dollars gone??

Question

"It was before this committee that Australian climate scientist Bob Carter testified that "In one of the more expensive ironies of history, the expenditure of more than $50 billion on research into global warming since 1990 has failed to demonstrate any human-caused climate trend, let alone a dangerous one."

Answer 1

Well some people got big new cars, others got expensive lab equipment to do other research with. Some got boats, others got houses, more took vacations and spread it around to the lower echelon's of their society, just good democrats redistributing the wealth of the poor to the life style of the rich and famous.

Answer 2

Tax money has a way of disappearing into the 'general' funds, even money that has been collected for specific purposes.  That has happened where I live, I don't know about the USA or other places but politics being what it is....

Money collected for roads or infrastructure here has been spent on other things, it's true.  I suspect that tax money collected for fighting global warming would find its way to other issues...probably for the better but still...why collect it in the first place?  It amounts to a tax-grab, nothing more.

Answer 3

To expand our knowledge of what it is the greatest environmental threat we've ever faced.

Bob Carter has been called "an embarrassment to Australian science".  He continues to make the ignorant claim that "global warming stopped in 1998" which shows he doesn't understand the simplest of data analyses.

Few scientists, even among "skeptics" deny that man has had a significant role in the current warming.  He's one, which puts him at the extreme end of denial.

By the way, scientists rarely get paid out of grant money, they're paid by the organizations that employ them.  Here's the truth, not made up nonsense:

"One of the many absurd arguments against global warming is that scientists are only in it for the money....

The idea that there are vast wealth and perks to be made from climate science is wrong, and would raise a laugh (albeit a rather bitter one) from anyone "inside""-

William Connolley Ph.D.

"Money and perks! Hahahaha. How in the world did I miss out on those when I was a lead author for the Third Assessment report? Working on IPCC is a major drain on ones' time, and probably detracts from getting out papers that would help to get grants (not that we make money off of grants either, since those of us at national labs and universities are not paid salary out of

grants for the most part.) We do it because it's work that has to be done. It's grueling and demanding, and not that much fun, and I can assure everybody that there is no remuneration involved..." -RayPierre Ph.D.

"The problem with this argument is that climate scientists aren't asking you to give them more money. They are asking you to fix the problem."

"There simply isn't a lot of money in science.  People need to look at how much professors and research scientists earn for a living. Of all the professional fields, hard science requires the most education and has one of the lowest levels of pay."

EDIT - You're flat wrong about the source of the quote.  It wasn't " a liberal news editor", as you claim.  It was a fellow Australian scientist. Since you won't dare, I'll post the cite:

http://www.scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006...

It may have been said by one person, but that doesn't mean that many Australian heads are not nodding in agreement.

And Carter isn't a climatologist, he's a geologist. You really should get your facts straight if you want any credibility here.  A few references wouldn't hurt either.

EDIT 2 - How did I blow it?  "Tim Lambert is a computer scientist [a Ph.D., by the way] at the University of New South Wales. "  

"liberal newspaper editor"?

He disassembles Carter pretty thoroughly at:

http://timlambert.org/category/science/b...

Answer 4

Some of it was wasted on the DSCOVR project (Deep Space Climate Observatory).[1]  DSCOVER is a NASA satellite proposed in 1998 by then-Vice President Al Gore for the purpose of studying the process of global warming. The scientific goals are the first direct measurements of how much sunlight is reflected and emitted from Earth, measurements of amount of solar energy reaching Earth, cloud patterns, weather systems, monitor the health of Earth's vegetation, and track the amount of UV light reaching the surface through the ozone layer.

The satellite that has been built and paid for by tax payers at a cost of over $100 million dollars. But because of petty partisan politics, the project has become doomed. The same people who are repeating that there is not enough research to support action on global warming are the same ones that suppress such research.

Faced with political hostility on one side and scientific support on the other, the DSCOVR satellite could neither be launched nor could it be terminated. It sits in a Maryland warehouse, and cost taxpayers $1 million dollars per year to store. The Ukrainian government even offered to launch DSCOVR for free aboard a Tsyklon IV rocket – the most reliable launch vehicle in the world. This request was refused.

Answer 5

Our what??

I don't know about you, but I live in the USA.  We don't have any global warming taxes.

Incidentally, Bob Carter is a marine geologist.  Listening to his opinion on global warming is like having a dentist perform open heart surgery on you.

Answer 6

As an American taxpayer, I am unaware of any global warming tax.  Then you said:

"Dana, we do have taxes tied in with global warming/environment..... they're called subsidies, tax abatement... etc. The multi- billion $$ benefits that make ethanol, wind and solar power possible. Those benefits come from the U.S.A. taxpayer."

I thought ethanol and solar power were steps taken to reduce the dependence on foreign oil.  Now I am learning this is really all about global warming.  Can you point to any statement made buy congress in a spending bill to back up your statement?

Answer 7

into the pockets of the government