Completely agree with your remarks. This administration is destroying one of our greatest sources of "soft power". It is bewildering to see and tempts one into believing that the intend to wreck our country. But why?
I finally decided to enjoy the peace and tranquility available to everyone through the judicious application of the Substack “Block” function. I highly recommend it. Now if I could just apply it to all my news feeds for “He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named.”
Mal, You're welcome. I found myself getting upset over some comments this time and realized that replying would be pointless. There are probably a handful or so total that spoil my experience here at TCB and so I decided to be proactive. I need to adopt this strategy over at sustainabilitybynumbers as well. I refer to this as the "avoid and ignore" strategy.
That's the right strategy. This is not your job (or mine), so you're not obligated to listen to any one else's take, especially if they're an idiot. Do what makes you happy.
It's not really that breakthroughs to help the US gain financially are threatened by Trump cutting scientific budgets. The US seems to be doing its best to isolate itself from world trade with tariffs etc anyway! The US's biggest export and business is the arms industry and war; the killing and maiming of life, not the saving or protection of it.
What is more to the point is that the CDC, NIH, NOAA, EPA and NASA regulate and monitor things like sewage, sanitation, climate change, toxins in the food and the air etc etc. These findings can be costly to businesses. Trump is slashing the testing and regulation that might harm profits.
This op-ed opposing reductions in federal funding is cluttered with unsupported claims of dubious consequences, including surrendering “our edge in scientific research “, whatever that means. What is that mystical federal funding threshold below which “our edge” is surrendered? What metric informs us when enough is enough federal funding?
And where is this fantasy land in which all the Ph.D.s are indispensable, and each is competent to make meaningful contributions to the advancement of science and the betterment of mankind?
Obviously there are many ongoing federally funded research projects, which upon objection analysis, would be considered a waste of taxpayer money. Because of the massive U.S. debt, such wasteful spending cannot be sustained. Some pruning is necessary and proper.
Funding agencies need to upgrade and tighten their award criteria to ensure the finest quality research consistent with the national needs. Whining by the scientific community is not helpful.
The irony is that American science and the industrial progress it enabled are major contributors to the climate crisis in the first place.
In terms of brain drain, I'm sure other countries would be happy to keep their best and brightest closer to home. That's a non-starter.
If the idea is that science is both the cause of The Climate Brink and the cure, it's a global problem and I don't think mother Earth cares if USA leads on that or not.
This just sounds a lot like U S A chest pounding ego that quite frankly drives everyone else nuts.
The Climate Brink seems to be experiencing double think. It highlights the brink that humanity is teetering on before the devastation of climate change, yet it also believes that countries will continue to trade with each other and compete in innovation advantage in an orderly manner.
I think that the US based industries that are mostly responsible for climate change, who may be greedy, are not stupid. They know what's coming. They want to isolate the US economically and physically and then watch the climate crisis affect the Global south/majority first and most severly.
Jo, more likely that our industry wants to stay competitive and is actively resisting the path shown by UK and Canada. CC in SH is far lower/slower than in NH if you believe the propaganda.
This channel has long been confused and unable to come up with alternatives to climate change theory that better explains the data or alternatives to government funded research models.
Nearly three-quarters of the value of recently terminated grants were in education, especially those promoting equity and participation of underrepresented groups in STEM.
Cutting funding for research in DEI is supposed to be bad?
Andrew, you're just worried because climate "science" looks to be in for big cuts. You know, the "science" that for 50 years has made dozens and dozens of predictions of imminent catastrophe, not one of which has come true …
The globe has been warming in fits and starts for ~ 300 years, since the nadir of the Little Ice Age around 1700 AD. Not one scientist can tell us why it didn't just keep cooling, or for that matter it didn't just stay cold, after 1700 AD. Why did it start warming? You don't know. Nobody knows. The first two centuries of that warming cannot be from CO2, it hadn't risen enough. And without knowing why two of the last three centuries warmed, claiming we know why this one warmed is … well … let me call it "unsubstantiated".
And of course, no scientist has explained Dr. Kiehl's paradox, which clearly shows that the climate models are simply tuned realizations of the makers' beliefs and are NOT based on actual physical principles. So why on earth should we believe them?
There's no "climate crisis". I've posted the following all around the web. Nobody has found a single error in it. If you can find one, I invite you to QUOTE it and SHOW (not just claim) that it's wrong.
Heck, after fifty years have passed and hundreds of millions of work-hours and computer time and dollars have been thrown at the problem, the uncertainty bounds of your most central "constant" in the current climate science paradigm, the "climate sensitivity", have only grown larger. I know of no other field where that is the case.
Given all of that, it should be no surprise that government funding for climate "science" is being cut.
The problem was stated long ago by Upton Sinclair:
'It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.'
Best to all,
w.
PS—Lots of folks don't seem to have realized that we are not only broke and running with a huge (~2 TRILLION) budget deficit, but we're also in debt over our heads. The rude truth is we have to cut EVERYWHERE, and yes, that includes NSF grants. Given that, where would you cut the NSF grants?
We are broke because for 40+ years Republicans have been cutting taxes and claiming that reduced taxes will generate higher revenue. They don't.
The terminated grants were not in the majority "DEI". Furthermore, a 55% cut in NSF budget will severely hurt science. Finally, only nut cases believe that climate change is not happening.
Thanks, Mitch. The largest increase in the national debt occurred under … wait for it … Joe Biden. Second largest, Donald Trump. So your claim is totally untrue.
Next, WE HAVE TO CUT OUR EXPENSES TO THE BONE. Yes, good programs will be cut, but the other option is bankruptcy.
Finally, only nut cases think that climate change has not been happening since there has been climate. And I notice that you failed to find a single thing wrong with the dozens of facts and claims I presented in my links above … funny how that works. You're long on talk and short on facts.
Completely agree with your remarks. This administration is destroying one of our greatest sources of "soft power". It is bewildering to see and tempts one into believing that the intend to wreck our country. But why?
Serenity Now!
I finally decided to enjoy the peace and tranquility available to everyone through the judicious application of the Substack “Block” function. I highly recommend it. Now if I could just apply it to all my news feeds for “He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named.”
Thanks Dean, that's a handy feature!
Mal, You're welcome. I found myself getting upset over some comments this time and realized that replying would be pointless. There are probably a handful or so total that spoil my experience here at TCB and so I decided to be proactive. I need to adopt this strategy over at sustainabilitybynumbers as well. I refer to this as the "avoid and ignore" strategy.
That's the right strategy. This is not your job (or mine), so you're not obligated to listen to any one else's take, especially if they're an idiot. Do what makes you happy.
To lead the world, one must be a scientific powerhouse. If you aren't, it will be impossible to lead.
Why should America be leading the world? Why should any country lead the world?
It's unfortunate that so few tarnished the reputation of so many.
It's not really that breakthroughs to help the US gain financially are threatened by Trump cutting scientific budgets. The US seems to be doing its best to isolate itself from world trade with tariffs etc anyway! The US's biggest export and business is the arms industry and war; the killing and maiming of life, not the saving or protection of it.
What is more to the point is that the CDC, NIH, NOAA, EPA and NASA regulate and monitor things like sewage, sanitation, climate change, toxins in the food and the air etc etc. These findings can be costly to businesses. Trump is slashing the testing and regulation that might harm profits.
This op-ed opposing reductions in federal funding is cluttered with unsupported claims of dubious consequences, including surrendering “our edge in scientific research “, whatever that means. What is that mystical federal funding threshold below which “our edge” is surrendered? What metric informs us when enough is enough federal funding?
And where is this fantasy land in which all the Ph.D.s are indispensable, and each is competent to make meaningful contributions to the advancement of science and the betterment of mankind?
Obviously there are many ongoing federally funded research projects, which upon objection analysis, would be considered a waste of taxpayer money. Because of the massive U.S. debt, such wasteful spending cannot be sustained. Some pruning is necessary and proper.
Funding agencies need to upgrade and tighten their award criteria to ensure the finest quality research consistent with the national needs. Whining by the scientific community is not helpful.
The irony is that American science and the industrial progress it enabled are major contributors to the climate crisis in the first place.
In terms of brain drain, I'm sure other countries would be happy to keep their best and brightest closer to home. That's a non-starter.
If the idea is that science is both the cause of The Climate Brink and the cure, it's a global problem and I don't think mother Earth cares if USA leads on that or not.
This just sounds a lot like U S A chest pounding ego that quite frankly drives everyone else nuts.
The Climate Brink seems to be experiencing double think. It highlights the brink that humanity is teetering on before the devastation of climate change, yet it also believes that countries will continue to trade with each other and compete in innovation advantage in an orderly manner.
I think that the US based industries that are mostly responsible for climate change, who may be greedy, are not stupid. They know what's coming. They want to isolate the US economically and physically and then watch the climate crisis affect the Global south/majority first and most severly.
Jo, more likely that our industry wants to stay competitive and is actively resisting the path shown by UK and Canada. CC in SH is far lower/slower than in NH if you believe the propaganda.
This channel has long been confused and unable to come up with alternatives to climate change theory that better explains the data or alternatives to government funded research models.
Nearly three-quarters of the value of recently terminated grants were in education, especially those promoting equity and participation of underrepresented groups in STEM.
Cutting funding for research in DEI is supposed to be bad?
Andrew, you're just worried because climate "science" looks to be in for big cuts. You know, the "science" that for 50 years has made dozens and dozens of predictions of imminent catastrophe, not one of which has come true …
The globe has been warming in fits and starts for ~ 300 years, since the nadir of the Little Ice Age around 1700 AD. Not one scientist can tell us why it didn't just keep cooling, or for that matter it didn't just stay cold, after 1700 AD. Why did it start warming? You don't know. Nobody knows. The first two centuries of that warming cannot be from CO2, it hadn't risen enough. And without knowing why two of the last three centuries warmed, claiming we know why this one warmed is … well … let me call it "unsubstantiated".
And of course, no scientist has explained Dr. Kiehl's paradox, which clearly shows that the climate models are simply tuned realizations of the makers' beliefs and are NOT based on actual physical principles. So why on earth should we believe them?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/01/dr-kiehls-paradox/
There's no "climate crisis". I've posted the following all around the web. Nobody has found a single error in it. If you can find one, I invite you to QUOTE it and SHOW (not just claim) that it's wrong.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/04/25/wheres-the-emergency/
Heck, after fifty years have passed and hundreds of millions of work-hours and computer time and dollars have been thrown at the problem, the uncertainty bounds of your most central "constant" in the current climate science paradigm, the "climate sensitivity", have only grown larger. I know of no other field where that is the case.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/12/26/a-decided-lack-of-equilibrium/
Given all of that, it should be no surprise that government funding for climate "science" is being cut.
The problem was stated long ago by Upton Sinclair:
'It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.'
Best to all,
w.
PS—Lots of folks don't seem to have realized that we are not only broke and running with a huge (~2 TRILLION) budget deficit, but we're also in debt over our heads. The rude truth is we have to cut EVERYWHERE, and yes, that includes NSF grants. Given that, where would you cut the NSF grants?
We are broke because for 40+ years Republicans have been cutting taxes and claiming that reduced taxes will generate higher revenue. They don't.
The terminated grants were not in the majority "DEI". Furthermore, a 55% cut in NSF budget will severely hurt science. Finally, only nut cases believe that climate change is not happening.
Thanks, Mitch. The largest increase in the national debt occurred under … wait for it … Joe Biden. Second largest, Donald Trump. So your claim is totally untrue.
Next, WE HAVE TO CUT OUR EXPENSES TO THE BONE. Yes, good programs will be cut, but the other option is bankruptcy.
Finally, only nut cases think that climate change has not been happening since there has been climate. And I notice that you failed to find a single thing wrong with the dozens of facts and claims I presented in my links above … funny how that works. You're long on talk and short on facts.
w.
Wrong. Try Trump first term. Meanwhile Reagan tripled the national debt while pretending to be fiscally conservative.
RIght. The increase was larger under Biden. See:
https://rosebyanyothernameblog.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/national-debt-by-president.png
w.