Climate Researchers resort to "Guerrilla Archiving" to Safeguard Key Data from Trump

I am sure that Trump as a businessman wants to know where the billions of dollars of tax dollars that goes to "global warming and clima change is going too"

I mean,

Global warming gets nearly twice as much taxpayer money as border security

The White House reported to House Republicans that there are 18 federal agencies engaged in global warming activities in 2013, funding a wide range of programs, including scientific research, international climate assistance, incentivizing renewable energy technology and subsidies to renewable energy producers. Global warming spending is estimated to cost $22.2 billion this year, and $21.4 billion next year.

dailycaller.com...

I bet no a lot of people knows how much it cost to the tax payer the research in Global warming.

This no only one agency but 18 federal agencies taking tax dollars, so where is the money going to.

a reply to: FamCore

Actually, it's the same thing. "Climate Change" was a term cooked up by Frank Luntz for the Bush Administration.

Oh the melodrama, as if Trump gonna go running in there with torches and have a good old fashioned climate data burning.

a reply to: FamCore

Yeah. It's almost more scary to think that all this scientific data was somehow thought to be so easy to censorship without them doing all this archiving.

I mean we can't even scrub a d*ck pic or a twitter message from the net even if it's deleted 2 minutes after it was posted. So why would tons of science data be so easily lost?? Doesn't make sense.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Is not going to be any burning of data so far at 22 to 21 billion a year since 2013 is 60 billions by now, that is some expensive research and we the tax payer owns it.

a reply to: mOjOm

I think that the so call agencies behind the clima change better have something to show for with all the billions they have pocketed.

a reply to: theantediluvian

How is it the same thing?

Even without my being that scientifically knowledgeable, the implied meaning of "Global Warming" suggests global temperatures are increasing, whereas "Climate Change" would seem to suggest all-around volatility (not just an increase in temperatures) in the earth's climate.

Also according to Google, there is a difference:

Global warming: the increase in Earth's average surface temperature due to rising levels of greenhouse gases.

Climate change: a long-term change in the Earth's climate, or of a region on Earth. Within scientific journals, this is still how the two terms are used.

a reply to: RedDragon

You have got to be kidding me. Either you're grossly uninformed or your head is firmly planted in the sand.

Priceless... must save data...

We may be able to pass this scam on to future generations...

Must save data....

Give it up already, divest if you foolishly invested in this deal...

SMH

I love all the comments from people who can read all the articles on why ACC is a hoax over at Breitbart, but can't be bothered to read a paragraph or two on a research papers' abstract.

a reply to: projectvxn

AGC... then AGW... now ACC...

Of course Climate Changes.... what happened to global cooling... and global warming....

Cooked books, and cooked data does not equal PROOF...

More elitists trying to make $$$ out of nature....

More power to you if you fell for it... my unindoctrinated self just ain't buying...

as always.. YMMV...

a reply to: JacKatMtn

I tend to look at the data myself instead of listening to political diatribes.

NOAA Datasets

NASA Datasets

Ice Core Data

And, of course, the thousands of peer reviewed articles available for anyone not intellectually lazy to peruse themselves.

Articles

a reply to: projectvxn

Don't be throwing that "peer reviewed" mantra on me...

I ain't buying... and I notice how those peers have been so vicious to anyone in the scientific community who don't draw water for them...

Seems a bit CLOSED minded for folks who claim to be scientific?

a reply to: JacKatMtn

The peer review process is incredibly important.

It's amazing to me that people who regularly enjoy the fruits of the scientific process remain so WILLFULLY ignorant of it.

a reply to: FamCore

Memo exposes Bush's new green strategy (2003)

"The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science," Mr Luntz writes in the memo, obtained by the Environmental Working Group, a Washington-based campaigning organisation.

"Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly.

"Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate."

The phrase "global warming" should be abandoned in favour of "climate change", Mr Luntz says, and the party should describe its policies as "conservationist" instead of "environmentalist", because "most people" think environmentalists are "extremists" who indulge in "some pretty bizarre behaviour... that turns off many voters".

FTR, that pretty much also lays bare the entire politically motivated anti-science strategy of the GOP regarding AGW.

a reply to: projectvxn

Peer reviewed science... is a tried and true method to ferret out breakthroughs...

Not so much respected, when it is hijacked by globalist agenda...

Big Difference...

Feel free to tag on to that club...

I won't...

a reply to: JacKatMtn

Yes all those evil scientists just wanna enslave you. They go to school all their lives in order to bring about the new world order.

Peer review is just part of the agenda. Climate change is a ruse, vaccines are killing you, GMOs will turn everyone into mutants, and so forth and so on.


The worst part about this is when you people ask for evidence and the reject it. But you're ok accepting political religion in place of scientific evidence.

a reply to: JacKatMtn

please know that I support you. There a very big difference between science and politics!

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

please know that I support you. There a very big difference between science and politics

And it seems ya'll can't tell what that difference actually is.

a reply to: theantediluvian

From the memo you have posted.

"Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate."

So the public should not know that there is a lack of scientific certainy????

Its called a confidence game. Act as if you are sure. Don't let the public see hear or sense any uncertainty. When you control the information, you control the public. It used to be called propaganda.

And anyone who opposes your strategy is "evil". Really????

Tired of Control Freaks