Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer has seen all those scientific reports about global warming and climate change, and he's had enough! The solution? Cut funding for the UN's Climate Change Panel to get rid of all those silly scientists. You know, the group that produced the most "definitive statement on global warming" to date. What the f*** do they know anyway?
U.S. Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (MO-9) today introduced legislation that would save taxpayers $12.5 million this year and millions more in the future by prohibiting the United States from contributing to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is fraught with waste and is engaged in dubious science.
“We all know that the UN is incompetent when it comes to spending money, and that is why American taxpayers should not be forking over millions more to one of its organizations that not only is in need of significant reform but is engaged in dubious scientific quests,” Luetkemeyer said. “Folks in Missouri and across the country are tired of this never ending government spending spree, and my goal is to deliver some of our people’s hard-earned money back into their pocketbooks instead of spending it on international junk science.”
In Luetkemeyer's press release, he explains why it's so important to get rid of the UN's scientific studies about climate change.
Supporters of the cap-and-trade legislation are using the questionable findings by the UN IPCC as one reason to support the onerous legislation, which is nothing more than a national energy tax and will be debated soon by the U.S. Senate. Luetkemeyer voted against this legislation and will continue to voice his concerns with the majority’s cap-and-tax legislation.
Those darn cap and trade supporters! Always pointing to "studies" and "evidence" that we need to do something about pollution and the way we're affecting the planet.
Ironically, Luetkemeyer is actually a fan of junk science. For instance, he says in this same release, "our very own Environmental Protection Agency recently reported that we are undergoing a period of worldwide cooling." He's referring, of course, to the same EPA which states the following on its website:
Is our planet warming?
Yes. The global temperature record shows an average warming of about 1.3°F (0.74ºC) over the past century. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), seven of the eight warmest years on record have occurred since 2001. Within the past 30 years, the rate of warming across the globe has been approximately three times greater than the rate over the last 100 years. Past climate information suggests the warmth of the last half century is unusual in at least the previous 1,300 years in the Northern Hemisphere. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that warming of the Earth’s climate system is now “unequivocal” (i.e., “definite”). The IPCC bases this conclusion on observations of increases in average air and ocean temperatures, melting of snow and ice, and average sea level across the globe. For more information, visit the Recent Climate Change page of EPA’s Climate Change site.
Luetkemeyer and his fellow global warming deniers have been quite willing to cherry pick data that gives them answers they want to see. But, as NASA climate scientist Gavin Schmidt explains, this is nuts.
"What if I said that there had been no global warming for an hour? You would rightly tell me that this was too short a period for it to be meaningful," Schmidt said. "The same is true for a 'decade'. But even so, it is false."
Schmidt directed us to a graph showing the 10-year climate trends using the four main temperature indices. The line bounces up and down like a lie detector graph, but the overall lines all trend upward .
"To be clear, the globe has warmed for the last decade," Schmidt said. "You can get different results if you pick out your start dates carefully, a practice known as cherry-picking since it is trying to use the data to say something other than what it generally shows, but you are much better off looking at the longest time scales you have (such as these from NASA)."
Here's one of the charts referenced by Schmidt:
And here's an NOAA chart with long-term data.
I really can't believe that we're still having this conversation.
That said, if we just got rid of the scientists, there wouldn't be anything to talk about.