Yes, the world is full of anti science fruitcakes. Many people (I imagine this would include you) want to defund the U.N. and the argo floats are partly funded by the UN. [1]
Now I have answered your question lets have a look at your rant...
First of all; You resort to name calling, your dad would tell you you have lost the argument.
Secondly; "Only an unreasonable person would assert that we stop taking temperatures" I agree. ;)
Thirdly; Despite your straw-man argument, I am have no reason to doubt that Hey Dook knows why we humans take temperatures and do the science.
And lastly, if Obama wants to hand the UN a trillion dollars a day he is more then welcome to, if you try to claim he gave 100 billion from U.S tax money, then like senator Jim Inhofe [2] you do not understand the role of the various levels of government. It is also possible that you are lying rather then ignorant, but that is hard to tell since I have no idea where you got that 100 billion number from or if you actually believe it.
Edit:
"What does defunding the recording, collection and storage of Earth's temperature have to do with the UN?" Like I said the argo floats are partly funded by the UN. I even provided a link [1] to their website. Those argo floats were not around when The League of Nations cease to exist in 1946 [3]
And what is with the childish "You been sniffing the crematory smoke again?" Is it because I showed you to be an "unreasonable person" using your own arguments? Do you deny the accuracy of the quotes, or do you only disagree with my conclusion? Or are you trying to provoke a childish reply like "No, I am not downwind from your place of employment."?
Indeed I believe they have. Let's face it, the Tea Party wants to defund everything, although they are strangely silent when it comes to the Defense Department (the Iraq War alone cost over one trillion dollars).
NOAA provides the most bang for the buck of virtually any spending program the U.S. has.
Impressive (relatively speaking).
After stealing roughly 30 or 40 questions of mine verbatim, you are now recycling one
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?...
"If we defunded temperature measurements how would we know if there were a "pause" in global warming?"
in your own words.
Except that that one of mine was itself a recycle of one from Maxx.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?...
"During the man-made Global Warming 'pause' -- should we pause the funding as well?"
This question of Maxx answers your question here.
Looking forward to one of your usual well-informed, logical and honest statements (with or without Ha!'s) in response to this answer.
Edit: re "Now answer the question"
If you read my answer, above, you will see that MAXX, in his question, suggested pausing the funding for climate change because the temperature increases (allegedly) "paused." A pause in funding (in normal English) means the same as NOT funding or the same as defunding. Perhaps even you can realize setting up and maintaining temperature measurement devices around the globe is not done by charities for free. It requires funding, albeit on the order of less than 0.0004% of the revenues of a single large corporation, Exxon-Mobil for instance.
Edit 2: I cannot read Maxx's "mind," to figure out what he was "thinking," but as you both are still perfecting your mastery of introductory high school math, such as what an average means, and may not realize that one cannot just stick a huge thermometer into the earth and get a reading covering a whole year:
To get consistent and reliable GLOBAL average annual temperatures takes more than just gathering miscellaneous and sundry measurements taken for other reasons, it takes funding, e.g. FOR CLIMATE CHANGE RESEARCH, that which Maax thinks we should cut, because of evidence which THAT FUNDING enabled. When Muller did his corroboration of the mainstream results at Berkeley (which may be a communist state but is not a member of the UN), the Koches threw in a few hundred K. Whether they got the results they had expected is a separate question, but the point is funding was required, and to monitor temperatures an ongoing basis requires ongoing funding, though not in enormous amounts, and cutting it would save taxpayers peanuts, not enough to keep U.S. troops in Fallujah, Iraq for even a single day.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Ea...
Meanwhile I can look at statistics on the annual U.S. federal budget (which according to my copy of the Constitution is set by the Congress, not the President) and I do not see $100 billion being given to the UN for global warming research. Perhaps you have a link, supporting this allegation, that would not send a 7th grade teacher into amazement at your mental prowress? You have managed, rather to my astonishment, to look up and make use of the correct annual profit figure for Exxon-Mobil.
GW funding runs at about $1 billion per day.
So Exxon must be coining it: $91,250 trillion per year?
Perhaps we can link funding to the PDO index and fund climate science only when the index is in a warm phase?
Well the people who have been creating the datasets have been using fewer and fewer thermometers over the years to include in their measurements, so apparently they are OK with it.
please, sit back and watch this
