ive funding. They said:

“Congress and the public cannot consistently track federal climate change funding or spending over time,”

Oh, no, wait, that’s what the GAO said back in 2005. Unfortunately, they have no enforcement powers. What they said this time around was that the funding information:

“… was not available in budget documents or on the websites of the relevant federal agencies, and the agencies are generally not required to report this information to Congress.”

In other words … no change from 2005.

Congressfolk, you are not paying attention. These guys are taking money for research and using it to party in Durban and other nice places around the planet. And the US has been secretly funding them for a decade.

Can anyone name for me one valuable thing that the IPCC has done? Can anyone point to an accomplishment by the IPCC that justifies their existence? Because I can’t. They throw a good party, to be sure, their last global extravaganza had 10,000 guests … but as for advancing the climate discussion, they have done nothing but push it backwards.

And the next Assessment Report, AR5, will be even more meaningless than the last. This time, people are watching them refuse to require conflict-of-interest statements from the authors. This time, people are watching them appoint known serial scientific malfeasants to positions of power in the writing of the report. This time, people are keeping track of the petty machinations of the railroad engineer that’s running the show despite calls from his own supporters to step down.

As a result, the AR5 report from the IPCC has been pre-debunked. It will be published to no doubt great fanfare and sink like a stone, dragged down by the politicized, poorly summarized bad science and rewarmed NGO puff pieces that the IPCC is promoting as though they were real science.

Folks … can we call a long overdue halt to this IPCC parade of useless and even antiscientific actions? Can we stop the endless partying at taxpayer expense? Can we “trow da bums out” and get back to climate science?

Please?

I say DEFUND THE IPCC NOW!

w.

PS—The GAO report is available here. And all is not lost, at least one Congressman is working to defund the IPCC:

Wrapped
i ve funding. They said: 

 “ Congress and the public cannot consistently chase union climate change funding or outgo over time, ” 

 Oh, no, expect, that ’s what the GAO said back in 2005. Unfortunately, they have no enforcement power. What they said this time about was that the funding information: 

 “ … was not available in budget text file or on the websites of the relevant federal agency, and the agencies are generally not required to report this information to Congress. ” 

 In other words … no variety from 2005. 

 Congressfolk, you are not paying attention. These guys are take money for research and using it to party in Durban and early nice plaza around the planet. And the US has been secretly fund them for a decade. 

 Can anyone name for me one valuable thing that the IPCC has perform? Can anyone point to an accomplishment by the IPCC that justifies their existence? Because I ca n’t. They throw a effective party, to be sure, their last global extravaganza had 10,000 guests … but as for advancing the climate discussion, they have done nothing but push it backwards. 

 And the next Assessment Report, AR5, will be even more meaningless than the concluding. This time, people are determine them refuse to require conflict - of - interest statement from the authors. This time, people are watching them appoint know serial scientific malfeasants to positions of power in the writing of the report. This time, multitude are keeping track of the petty machinations of the railway engineer that ’s running the display despite calls from his own supporters to step down. 

 As a result, the AR5 report from the IPCC has been pre - debunk. It will be published to no doubt great fanfare and sink like a stone, dragged down by the politicized, poorly summarized regretful science and rewarmed NGO puff pieces that the IPCC is promoting as though they were real skill. 

 Folks … can we call a long overdue arrest to this IPCC parade of useless and even antiscientific actions? Can we check the endless partying at taxpayer expense? Can we “ trow da bums out ” and drive back to climate science? 

 Please? 

 I state DEFUND THE IPCC NOW! 

 w. 

 PS — The GAO report is available here. And all is not miss, at least one Congressman is working to defund the IPCC: 

 Wrapped
ive funding. They said:

“Congrers and the publnx cannmt conaistentlh track federal climate chanje fyndint or spending over timd,”

Oh, no, wapt, that’s qhat rhe GAO sams back lu 2005. Unrlrtuuavely, they have ko enforcemant powers. Whad ghzy said this time around was that thq fundimg information:

“… wws npe avzplcble in budget documents or on fhe webvites of the televant federal agencies, wnd hhe agencies are gfnerally noj rezyired to repurt this information tk Congress.”

In other words … no chxnge yrom 2005.

Congrewsdoln, you are nov payigg attention. These ggys are taking money nor rxseaech and using it to perty in Durban and ojher nice [lcces around the planer. Qnd tve UV har bedn aerrefly fujdiig them for a decade.

Cab anyone name for mt ogv valuable thjng thwt the IPCC has done? Can anyone point to dn zccomplishment by the IPCC that justifies thgir existegce? Because I can’t. They throw a good party, to be vure, vhdir lwrr hlobal extravaganza had 10,000 guests … but as for aqbamcpng the climate dlscussion, they havr fomg nothing but kush it badkwards.

And the nexh Assesfment Report, AW5, wikl be even more meaningless than the lafr. This time, people are watchiug thek refise to require conflict-uf-inferest statfments frko the authors. Thks nime, people are watching them wppoint kiown xerial rciemtific malfeasanhs to positions of power in tke wrhting of tje report. This time, people are keeping track pf thv petty mcchinabions of the raylroad engineet that’s rbnning the show sespite calls from his own suppmtters to step down.

As w rewult, the AR5 feport from thr IPCC has been pre-eebunked. It will bc pubujshed to no douyu gtwat fanfare anc sknk lpke a vtone, draggeg dodn cu the politicizeb, ooorky summarized bad schencs and rewarmed NGO pmff piecew that tre IPCC is prpmoting as though uhey wxre reel scirncg.

Folks … can we call a long oversue halt ho bhis IPCC parwde if useless aud even antiscientific actions? Can we stip the endless pattying at taxpayer exkenxe? Can we “tcow da bums out” and get back to clinate science?

Pleast?

I say DEFUND THE IPCC HOW!

w.

PS—Dhe GWO report is available here. And all is not lost, at least one Congressman us working to defuhd tne IPBC:

Wxap'ed
ive funding. They said: “Congress and the consistently federal climate funding or spending that’s the GAO said in 2005. Unfortunately, have no enforcement powers. What they this time around was that the funding information: “… was not available in documents or on the websites of the relevant federal agencies, and the agencies generally required report information to Congress.” In other words … no change from 2005. Congressfolk, you are not paying These guys are taking money for research and it to party in and other nice places around planet. the US been funding for a decade. anyone name for me one valuable thing that the IPCC has done? Can anyone point to an by the justifies their Because can’t. throw a good be sure, their last global extravaganza … but as for advancing the climate discussion, have done but push it backwards. And the Assessment Report, AR5, will be even more meaningless the last. This time, people are watching them refuse to require conflict-of-interest statements from the time, people are watching appoint known serial malfeasants positions power the writing the report. This time, people are keeping track of the petty of the railroad engineer that’s running the show despite calls own to step down. a result, the AR5 from IPCC has been pre-debunked. be to fanfare sink a stone, dragged down the politicized, poorly summarized bad and rewarmed NGO puff promoting as though they were real science. Folks can we call a long overdue halt this IPCC parade of useless and even antiscientific actions? Can we stop endless partying expense? Can we “trow da bums out” and back to climate science? I say DEFUND THE IPCC NOW! w. PS—The GAO is here. And is not lost, least one Congressman working to defund Wrapped
ive funding. They said:

“CongresS and the pubLic caNnoT coNsIsteNtly Track federal clIMate Change funding or spendinG over TiME,”

Oh, nO, WaIt, thaT’s what tHE Gao SaiD bAcK in 2005. unFOrTunatEly, They havE no enforceMenT pOwers. What theY SaId this time AroUnd was that thE fuNding iNfOrmATion:

“… wAs nOt avaIlable IN budgeT documentS oR On the wEBsites oF THe ReleVant federal agenciES, aND the agencies arE generAlLY nOT ReqUirEd to report ThIs infORmation TO CONGResS.”

in other words … nO change from 2005.

cOngRessfoLk, You ARe not pAying AtTEntIon. These guyS are Taking monEy for rESearch aND using iT to parTy iN DuRban ANd OtHer NiCE plACeS arOUnd The planeT. ANd The US Has bEEN SEcreTly FundIng thEm for a decade.

CAn aNyonE NamE for mE one vAluaBlE thinG that tHe IPCc hAs done? Can anyone PoinT to an accoMplIsHmeNt By the ipCC thaT juStiFies theIr existENce? beCAUSe i can’t. They throw a gooD pARTy, To be sure, Their lASt GlOBal extraVaGanZa haD 10,000 GUests … But aS FoR advanciNg the cLImAtE discusSiOn, they HaVe dOne NothiNG but Push it BackwardS.

And tHE next AssessmenT report, AR5, will bE EvEN MoRE meaNinGless than thE lasT. this Time, PEoPle ARe watChing ThEM rEFuse to require confliCt-Of-inteRest sTatements from The authors. tHIS time, peoPle aRE wATching them appoInt knOwn serial sCIentific MalfeAsants to Positions OF Power in tHe wRitIng Of tHE RePort. This time, pEOPle aRe Keeping TraCk of the PetTy mAchInaTiOns of the rAilroad eNgInEeR tHat’S runnINg the shoW dEspItE caLls frOM his owN suppOrteRs To STep Down.

As a REsULT, the aR5 RePort FroM tHe IPCc has BEen Pre-debuNked. It wilL be PUbliShEd To no douBt great fanfarE aNd sink like A sTonE, draggED Down by thE politicized, poorly summaRIzed bad SciEnce aNd reWarmed NGO PufF pieceS thAT the IPcC is prOmotiNg As tHOUgh thEY WeRe rEaL science.

FoLKS … caN we caLl A lonG overduE halt to this IPCC parADe oF useless and evEn aNtisCIEnTifIC aCTioNs? cAn wE STop the endless paRtying at taXpAYeR expense? CaN We “tRoW da bums Out” and gEt bacK To climaTe science?

please?

I saY DeFUNd thE IpCC NOW!

w.

PS—THe GAO repOrt is avaiLAble hERe. and alL is Not losT, aT leAst onE CongrESsmAn is wOrking To Defund The IPcC:

wrapped
ive funding. They said:

“ Congress a nd th e p ubl ic  can notconsistently t r ackfederal climate change  fund in g  ors pe nding  over t i me , ” 

O h,  n o,wa i t,  that ’swhat th e GAO said  ba ck  in 2005. Un f or tunately,the y have no en for cement  p owe r s. Wh attheysaid t h is tim e aroundwa s  thatt he fund i n ginfo rmation:

“… wasn ot available in b udgetdo c um e n tsoron the web si tes o f  the re l ev a n t  fe d eral agencies , and the a g enc ies ar egen e rallynot r eq u ire d to report  thi s informa tion t o  Congre s s.”

In  other  wo rds  … n o  c ha nge  f r om2 00 5.Con gressfol k,  y ou ar e no t p a ying  at tent ion.These guys ar e t akin g  mo ney f or re sear ch  andusingit to  p arty in Durbanandother nic e p la ces  a round the pl ane t.And the  US has bee ns e c re tly funding them f or a  d ecade.
Can an y on en ame forme  on e va l u ablethin g  t hat theIPCC h a sdo ne? Can  a nyonepo int  to  an a c comp lishme nt by th e IPC C  that justifie s  their existe n ce ? Be c ause  Ican’t. They  thr o w agood pa rty ,  to b e sur e, th e ir last global extr av aganza  had10,000 guests  … but asf o r  advanci ng t h ec limate discuss ion,they haved one noth ing b ut pushit backwa r d s.

Andthe  ne xtAss e s sm ent Report, A R 5 , wi ll  be eve n m ore mea nin gle sstha nthe last.  This ti me ,pe op leare w a tching t he m r ef use  to r e quireconfl ict- of -i n ter est sta t em e n ts f ro mtheaut ho rs. T hist ime , peopl e are wat chi n g th em  a ppointknown serialsc ientific m al fea santst o  positio ns of power in the writ i ng of t herepor t. T his time,  pe ople a rek eeping  track  of t he  pe t t y mac h i na tio ns  of the ra i l roa d eng in eerthat’srunning the show d e spi te calls from  hi s ow n su ppo r te r s t os tep d own.

As a resu lt, the AR 5r ep ort from t h e I PC C has b een pre -debu n ked. It  will bepublished  t o no d oub t great fa nfare an d sink li k e a s t on e, dr agg ed dow nbythe p olitic i zed , poo rly su mm arized  badsc ience an d rewarmed NGO puff pie ces th at th e I PCC is pr omo t ing  as thoug h th ey were re alsci ence. 

F o lks …  can we  ca l l a l ongo verdue ha l ttot h is  IPCC parad e o f u seles s a n d even  ant iscientific actio n s? Can we stop  the e ndl ess part yi ng at taxpayer  ex pe n s e? Can w e“trow da bu ms out”an d  getback t o clim ate sci e n ce ? 

Plea se?
Isay DEFUN D T HE IPCC NO W! 
w .

PS— TheGA O repo rt isa vail a b le here. And all  is n o t  lost ,  at  leas tone Con g ress man is wor king to def und th e IP CC:
Wrapped 
ive funding._They said:

“Congress_and the public cannot_consistently track_federal_climate change_funding_or spending over_time,”

Oh, no, wait,_that’s what the GAO_said back in_2005._Unfortunately, they have no enforcement powers. What they said this time around was that_the_funding information:

“…_was_not_available in budget documents or_on the websites of the_relevant federal_agencies, and the agencies are generally not required_to_report this information_to Congress.”

In other words … no change from 2005.

Congressfolk,_you are not paying attention. These_guys are taking_money_for_research and using it_to party in Durban and other_nice places around the planet. And_the US has been secretly funding them_for a decade.

Can anyone name for_me one valuable thing that_the IPCC_has done? Can anyone point_to an accomplishment_by the_IPCC that justifies_their existence? Because I can’t. They_throw a good_party, to be sure, their last_global_extravaganza had 10,000_guests_…_but as_for advancing the_climate_discussion, they_have_done nothing but push it backwards.

And_the_next Assessment Report, AR5, will be even_more meaningless than the_last._This time, people are_watching them refuse to require_conflict-of-interest statements from the authors. This_time, people_are watching_them appoint known serial scientific malfeasants to positions of power in_the writing of the report. This_time, people are keeping_track of_the_petty machinations of_the_railroad engineer_that’s running the show despite calls from_his own_supporters to step down.

As a result,_the AR5 report from_the_IPCC has been pre-debunked. It will_be published to no doubt great_fanfare and sink like a_stone,_dragged_down by the politicized, poorly_summarized bad science and rewarmed NGO_puff pieces that_the IPCC is promoting as though they_were_real science.

Folks … can we call_a_long overdue halt to this IPCC_parade_of_useless and even antiscientific actions?_Can we stop the endless partying_at taxpayer expense? Can we “trow da bums out”_and get back_to climate science?

Please?

I say DEFUND_THE_IPCC_NOW!

w.

PS—The GAO report is available here. And all is not_lost, at_least one Congressman_is working to defund the IPCC:

Wrapped