House Science Committee Hearing next week, what will we learn?
Dr. Judith Curry has announced on her always interesting web blog Climate, Inc. that she will be testifying at the "Full Committee Hearing- Climate Science: Assumptions, Policy Implications, and the Scientific Method". The official hearing press release is here.
Of course everyone is looking forward to watching the questions to and testimony of all of the witnesses which are John Christy, Judith Curry, Michael Mann and Roger Pielke Jr.
The problem is actually much bigger than what this hearing is addressing. Let's first ask the simple question:
"How much has been spent on climate change science, policy, regulations, industry and individuals in total over the past two decades, with the hope of reducing Co2, and what has it achieved"
Well globally, we can't really say for sure, but we can refer to the GAO website report called "Climate Change Funding and Management" here. Which reads:
Federal funding for climate change research, technology, international assistance, and adaptation has increased from $2.4 billion in 1993 to $11.6 billion in 2014, with an additional $26.1 billion for climate change programs and activities provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in 2009. As shown in figure 1, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has reported federal climate change funding in three main categories since 1993:
technology to reduce emissions,
science to better understand climate change, and
international assistance for developing countries.
Figure 1: Reported Federal Climate Change Funding by Category, 1993-2014
So in our next exercise, we went ahead and grabbed the CO2 PPM Annual Mean file from here, charted it over the same period, which looks like this:
Next, we could not help ourselves but to overlay the two to check for any correlation of global mean ambient Co2 and US Government spending on climate change, the results are shocking:
So what conclusions can we draw from this, we are forced with a multiple choice option:
- Stop spending on climate change in the hopes of lowering Co2, and remove it from the already bloated national discretionary spending budget along with all other scientific research and let the private sector handle science;
- Spend more on climate change with the hopes at some point this correlation shall reverse itself, and continue the path to national insolvency;
- Spend the same as we spent last year on climate change without an increase, and continue the path to national insolvency.
We believe #1 is the best option.