Obama billion dollar boondoggle

President Obama visited cantaloupe farmer Joe Del Bosque on Valentine’s Day to see the damage for himself. From the farm the President announced up to $238 million in much needed federal disaster relief for drought-stricken California.

In January, Governor Jerry Brown declared a state of drought emergency. NOAA records confirm California is experiencing its worst drought in recorded history. Records go back to 1895.

A White House fact sheet outlines federal disaster relief for California:

  • $150 million in livestock disaster assistance. $100 million for 2014. Up to $50 million for previous years.
  • $60 million made available for food banks.
  • Set up 600 meal distribution centers.
  • $15 million for conservation assistance.
  • $5 million for the Emergency Watershed Protection (EWP) Program.
  • $3 million in Emergency Water Assistance Grants for rural communities.

There is nothing new about the federal government stepping in to provide assistance in a disaster. What is new is what the President said after that during his 11-minute speech.

Unless and until we do more to combat carbon pollution that causes climate change, this trend (extreme weather) is going to get worse
– President Obama, Joe Del Bosque farm, 2/14/2014

The President specifically blamed California’s drought on human-caused global warming. He went on to say, to prepare for global warming, he will include a one billion dollar Climate Resilience Fund in the budget he submits to Congress next month.

According to the White House fact sheet the fund will:

  • Invest in research and unlock data and information to better understand the projected impacts of climate change.
  • Help communities plan and prepare for the impacts of climate change.
  • Fund breakthrough technologies and resilient infrastructure to help face changing climate.

Climate change alarmism, as stated by the President, is a commonly held belief that there have been and will continue to be increases in the number and intensity of extreme weather events caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

The one billion in proposed new spending isn’t to budget for disasters but, instead, to research and prepare for the possible effects of future climate change based on theory.

The problem with the extreme weather viewpoint is that it’s only marginally supported by empirical scientific evidence.

Contrary to what the President has said in numerous speeches, including the State of the Union, droughts are not getting worse.

On Feb. 16th, just after the Presidential Valentine’s Day speech, the New York Times exposed that “Science linking drought to global warming remains in dispute”.

Indeed, even the IPCC agrees. In the latest AR5 Summary for Policymakers report released last September, it backed off and now says it has “low confidence” that global warming has intensified or lengthened past and present droughts, nor will it until at least the 2nd half of this century.

Furthermore, extreme tornadoes (F3+) have decreased since 1850. Extreme hurricanes (Cat 3+) have decreased since 1950. According to NOAA records, the Atlantic hurricane season last year was one of the mildest ever recorded.

Climate change is real. Global warming and global cooling far more dramatic than what we see today has been driven by natural variability since before the dawn of mankind. It’s not going to stop now.

Instead of earmarking a billion dollars to study something we already know will occur, the President should budget the billion to help disaffected Americans when natural disasters like the California drought inevitably happen.

About azleader

Learning to see life more clearly... one image at a time!

Posted on Feb 19, 2014, in Business, Climate, climate change, economics, Economy, environment, Government, nature, news, Opinion, Politics, science, Thoughts. Bookmark the permalink. 6 Comments.

  1. Without a rigorous, scientific definition of extreme weather it is just a political statement.

    • Very true.

      However, with some types of weather events we can make accurate, undeniable timeline comparisons of their number and intensity. That is done with both tornadoes and hurricanes and both show deceases rather than increases in those traditional types of weather extremes.

  2. Chapter 3 of my autobiography (in process) will address the differences between pre- and post-WWII science.

    In the early part of the 20th century Einstein, Planck and Aston were able to appreciate god-like qualities in the force that sustains our lives and the vibrant universe.

    FEAR of the force in cores of Uranium and Plutonium atoms that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki on 6 and 9 August 1945, convinced world leaders to hide the force and blocked post-WWII scientists from . . .

    APPRECIATION of creative intelligence in the force in the Sun’s core that made our elements, birthed the Solar System, and sustained the origin and evolution of life.

    Thus, post-1945 science became

    1. An irrational cult that is
    2. Incompatible with reality
    3. Incompatible with spirituality
    4. Incompatible with democracy

    George Orwell saw this coming in 1946 when he moved from London to the Scotish Isle of Jura to start writing “Nineteen Eighty-Four.”

  3. I suppose that it is fruitless to make the government aware from historical data that the island of Crete in 1615 – in the coldest averaged/recorded period in the Holocene – not only dried up that year. It did so off and on for a passel more, effectively making it a non-target for Ottoman attackers. The fruit and vegetable crops that made it worthwhile burned to crisps. CRETE IS A CALIFORNIA-TYPE MICROCLIMATE. So did southern China (in 1615) near the Vietnam border. Travelers in North Africa noted recurrent droughts.

    The monsoon cycles, so disrupted, effected by the sun (or at least tied to weaker solar cycles – see Moos’s data) will dry up areas unexpectedly – then drown them with rains at unexpected times – usually at harvest, after farmers have killed themselves keeping them wet. This has happened recently in Siberia (2 years ago) and in Pakistan and Nigeria about as long ago. Now, California. All of this is a consequence of solar cycle weakness and other most likely geo-cycles tied to it, or other geo-factors – possibly even human pollution. But the deep-science record points at the sun mostly.

    • The Obama Administration apparently hasn’t even read the IPCC AR5 report. President Obama, his science adviser John Holdren and other Administration officials continue to promote alarmist climate change ideas that even the IPCC has backed off on.

      Administration expenditures and projected actions made in the name of climate change waste taxpayer money without any measurable gain. The private-sector switch to natural gas-fired electric power plants is the only action ever taken that has shown documented reductions in CO2 emissions.


Comments and questions are welcomed!

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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: