Reply
Honored Social Butterfly

'CLIMATE CHANGE' FIGHT HAS COST YOU MORE THAN $166 BILLION

'CLIMATE CHANGE' FIGHT HAS COST YOU MORE THAN $166 BILLION New report shows bill comparable to entire Apollo moon-mission program

 

By Joe Wilson

 

WASHINGTON – The U.S. government spent nearly as much fighting “climate change” between 1993 and 2014 as was spent on the entire Apollo program between 1962 and 1973, according to a new report.

 

A May 2017 report from the Capital Research Center (CRS) states that “from FY 1993 to FY 2014 total U.S. expenditures on climate change amount to more than $166 billion.”

 

The total includes more than $26.1 billion from President Obama’s 2009 stimulus bill, as well as regular annual budget amounts and federal tax credits distributed over a period of 21 years.

 

In comparison, the U.S. spent $200 billion, adjusted for inflation, on the Apollo space program, which ran from 1962 until 1973 and flew 17 missions, including Apollo 11, which put a man on the moon for the first time. Through the program, the U.S. sent seven men to the moon and back.

 

The CRS report comes just as President Trump has announced that the U.S. is withdrawing from the Paris climate accord. Under the agreement, the U.S. would have been obligated to pay $3 billion to a green fund by 2020, among other expected contributions.

 

The report shows that annual expenditures on climate change have increased 490 percent since 1993, and the annual amount going through the U.N. for combating climate change internationally has climbed by 440 percent.

 

Most of the money is not going to climate-science research but to control CO2 emissions based on inadequately tested hypotheses dating to the 1970s. The amount of money spent on further research and experimentation in climate science is $42.49 billion, according to the report. It’s little more than 25 percent of total expenditure on climate change, meaning that 75 percent of the U.S. climate-change budget is dedicated to “efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and their presumed, but not demonstrated, effects.”

 

The U.S. justification for such spending combating CO2 emissions is based on the 1979 Charney Report, published by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS). The Charney Report theorized that if CO2 in the atmosphere were to double, the earth’s surface temperature would increase by roughly 6 degrees Fahrenheit, with a margin of error of plus or minus 3 degrees. However, the Charney Report also predicted a more powerful warming trend caused by an increase in water vapor, earth’s dominant greenhouse gas.

 

The CRS report states: “In 1979, scientists lacked any comprehensive measurements of atmospheric temperatures, so the Charney Report’s guesses could not be confirmed or denied. But to cause this ‘top-down warming,’ the warming trends in the atmosphere would have to be more pronounced than surface warming trends.”

 

That’s because much of the energy from atmospheric warming is lost in space and doesn’t not affect surface temperature.

 

Despite the fact that the Charney Report’s data was unconfirmed, it heavily influenced the 1992 U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) signed by President George H.W. Bush and ratified, with stipulations, by the Senate. The treaty’s main goal was “stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.”

 

The UNFCCC aimed to combat the rise of greenhouse gas, even though insufficient data had been gathered to confirm the Charney Report’s hypothesis that greenhouse gases were contributing to global warming.

 

Meanwhile, “independent researchers have tested the Charney Report’s hypothesis against atmospheric temperature data, which now extends over 37 years, and found the hypothesis wanting,” the CRS report states.

 

New methods and equipment have been developed to test the hypothesis, and the data does not confirm it. As the report declares, “the hypothesis needs to be modified or discarded.”

However, the U.S. government continues to fund projects based on the faulty hypothesis.

 

Although it seems clear that the bulk of U.S. climate-change funding should go into research so that the actual cause of climate change, as well as its potential impact can be ascertained, more than $104.25 billion goes to projects other than scientific research, compared to only $42.49 billion sent to research projects.

 

Annual expenditures in research have increased by 200 percent since 1993, while other climate change-related expenditures have gone up by an astounding 850 percent. The combined cost of climate-change policy has been $166 billion from 1993 to 2014.

 

 

 

 

VIMTSTL
Honored Social Butterfly


@Richva wrote:

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

 

I guess you must know by now that I'm not in favor of taxing some to give to others.


That is what taxes DO!!!!  They build roads. They fund schools, they support the military. All that is for the common good. 


No, roads are for everybody, schools are for everybody, military is for everybody, Climate Change is for Liberals and underdeveloped countries.

0 Kudos
548 Views
11
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@Richva wrote:

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

 

I guess you must know by now that I'm not in favor of taxing some to give to others.


That is what taxes DO!!!!  They build roads. They fund schools, they support the military. All that is for the common good. 


No, roads are for everybody, schools are for everybody, military is for everybody, Climate Change is for Liberals and underdeveloped countries.


Rising oceans and melting icecaps are for everybody. Changes in precipitation patterns are for everybody. Increased environmental refugees (staring already) are for everybody. More intense hurricanes are for everybody. Droughts are for everybody. Insect outbreaks are for everybody.  Wow. The gift that hits all of us. 

0 Kudos
542 Views
10
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@Richva wrote:

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@Richva wrote:

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

 

I guess you must know by now that I'm not in favor of taxing some to give to others.


That is what taxes DO!!!!  They build roads. They fund schools, they support the military. All that is for the common good. 


No, roads are for everybody, schools are for everybody, military is for everybody, Climate Change is for Liberals and underdeveloped countries.


Rising oceans and melting icecaps are for everybody. Changes in precipitation patterns are for everybody. Increased environmental refugees (staring already) are for everybody. More intense hurricanes are for everybody. Droughts are for everybody. Insect outbreaks are for everybody.  Wow. The gift that hits all of us. 


Your expert on Climate Change (Al Gore) said many years ago that the two coasts would be flooded (hello) by the year 2014.  Of course he along with the rest of the liberal lemmings were wrong then and NOW!

0 Kudos
742 Views
5
Report
Recognized Social Butterfly


@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@Richva wrote:



Rising oceans and melting icecaps are for everybody. Changes in precipitation patterns are for everybody. Increased environmental refugees (staring already) are for everybody. More intense hurricanes are for everybody. Droughts are for everybody. Insect outbreaks are for everybody.  Wow. The gift that hits all of us. 


Your expert on Climate Change (Al Gore) said many years ago that the two coasts would be flooded (hello) by the year 2014.  Of course he along with the rest of the liberal lemmings were wrong then and NOW!


You will have to post a link where Al Gore actually said that.  From what I have read he said that the Arcitic ice COULD be gone by 2014 (it is well on its way).  As far as coastal flooding, this is what he had to say: "When co-anchor Katie Couric asked Al Gore on the May 24, 2006 Today show “What do you see happening in 15 to 20 years if nothing changes?...Even Manhattan would be in deep water”, he replied: “Yes, in fact the World Trade Center Memorial site would be underwater.”

 

So Arctic Ice is melting at an unprecedented rate, temperatures are rising.  Who are the lemmings?  By the way, I am not a liberal, so with what dismissive term would you classify me?

0 Kudos
737 Views
4
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@sp362 wrote:

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@Richva wrote:



Rising oceans and melting icecaps are for everybody. Changes in precipitation patterns are for everybody. Increased environmental refugees (staring already) are for everybody. More intense hurricanes are for everybody. Droughts are for everybody. Insect outbreaks are for everybody.  Wow. The gift that hits all of us. 


Your expert on Climate Change (Al Gore) said many years ago that the two coasts would be flooded (hello) by the year 2014.  Of course he along with the rest of the liberal lemmings were wrong then and NOW!


You will have to post a link where Al Gore actually said that.  From what I have read he said that the Arcitic ice COULD be gone by 2014 (it is well on its way).  As far as coastal flooding, this is what he had to say: "When co-anchor Katie Couric asked Al Gore on the May 24, 2006 Today show “What do you see happening in 15 to 20 years if nothing changes?...Even Manhattan would be in deep water”, he replied: “Yes, in fact the World Trade Center Memorial site would be underwater.”

 

So Arctic Ice is melting at an unprecedented rate, temperatures are rising.  Who are the lemmings?  By the way, I am not a liberal, so with what dismissive term would you classify me?


So, do you believe that Manhatten will be in deep water by 2021 (four years from now) and the World Trade Center Memorial site will be under water?  Al Gore is another mouth spewing ten times the CO2 that you or I do and we should listen to him?  Most of the noise comes from the radical left and the sole purpose is to transfer money from rich nations to poor nations (kinda like the liberal MO).

0 Kudos
729 Views
3
Report
Recognized Social Butterfly


@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:



Your expert on Climate Change (Al Gore) said many years ago that the two coasts would be flooded (hello) by the year 2014.  Of course he along with the rest of the liberal lemmings were wrong then and NOW!


You will have to post a link where Al Gore actually said that.  From what I have read he said that the Arcitic ice COULD be gone by 2014 (it is well on its way).  As far as coastal flooding, this is what he had to say: "When co-anchor Katie Couric asked Al Gore on the May 24, 2006 Today show “What do you see happening in 15 to 20 years if nothing changes?...Even Manhattan would be in deep water”, he replied: “Yes, in fact the World Trade Center Memorial site would be underwater.”

 

So Arctic Ice is melting at an unprecedented rate, temperatures are rising.  Who are the lemmings?  By the way, I am not a liberal, so with what dismissive term would you classify me?


So, do you believe that Manhatten will be in deep water by 2021 (four years from now) and the World Trade Center Memorial site will be under water?  Al Gore is another mouth spewing ten times the CO2 that you or I do and we should listen to him?  Most of the noise comes from the radical left and the sole purpose is to transfer money from rich nations to poor nations (kinda like the liberal MO).


I noticed you didn't bother to answer my question about your source, but I will give you the common courtesy of answering your question.  His actual quote is 4 to 9 years from now, IF nothing is done.  Globally, we are moving in the right direction, so that should slow it down.  If we are unable to stop the rise of the ocean, I am sure we will spend billions to trillions to protect New York City from the rising waters. So, no I do not believe the World Trade Center Memorial will be under water.

0 Kudos
726 Views
2
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@sp362 wrote:

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:



Your expert on Climate Change (Al Gore) said many years ago that the two coasts would be flooded (hello) by the year 2014.  Of course he along with the rest of the liberal lemmings were wrong then and NOW!


You will have to post a link where Al Gore actually said that.  From what I have read he said that the Arcitic ice COULD be gone by 2014 (it is well on its way).  As far as coastal flooding, this is what he had to say: "When co-anchor Katie Couric asked Al Gore on the May 24, 2006 Today show “What do you see happening in 15 to 20 years if nothing changes?...Even Manhattan would be in deep water”, he replied: “Yes, in fact the World Trade Center Memorial site would be underwater.”

 

So Arctic Ice is melting at an unprecedented rate, temperatures are rising.  Who are the lemmings?  By the way, I am not a liberal, so with what dismissive term would you classify me?


So, do you believe that Manhatten will be in deep water by 2021 (four years from now) and the World Trade Center Memorial site will be under water?  Al Gore is another mouth spewing ten times the CO2 that you or I do and we should listen to him?  Most of the noise comes from the radical left and the sole purpose is to transfer money from rich nations to poor nations (kinda like the liberal MO).


I noticed you didn't bother to answer my question about your source, but I will give you the common courtesy of answering your question.  His actual quote is 4 to 9 years from now, IF nothing is done.  Globally, we are moving in the right direction, so that should slow it down.  If we are unable to stop the rise of the ocean, I am sure we will spend billions to trillions to protect New York City from the rising waters. So, no I do not believe the World Trade Center Memorial will be under water.


The Climate will continue changing as it has done for millennia regardless of the billions or trillions wasted "trying" to mitigate Climate Change.  4 to 9 years from now, Al Gore will be wrong again as he has been in the past. I can't change the unchangeable and neither can you.

0 Kudos
724 Views
1
Report
Recognized Social Butterfly


@NOTHAPPENING wrote:




The Climate will continue changing as it has done for millennia regardless of the billions or trillions wasted "trying" to mitigate Climate Change.  4 to 9 years from now, Al Gore will be wrong again as he has been in the past. I can't change the unchangeable and neither can you.


I am sorry you are so misinformed and unwilling to educate yourself.  The fact that you think you know more than the scientists doing the actual research and are smarter than the majority of the people planet because you know something they don't know says volumes.  Just wait until the bills to mitigate the changes from climate change start to come due and we will see who is being fiscally prudent.

0 Kudos
717 Views
0
Report
Recognized Social Butterfly


@Richva wrote:

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@Richva wrote:

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

 

I guess you must know by now that I'm not in favor of taxing some to give to others.


That is what taxes DO!!!!  They build roads. They fund schools, they support the military. All that is for the common good. 


No, roads are for everybody, schools are for everybody, military is for everybody, Climate Change is for Liberals and underdeveloped countries.


Rising oceans and melting icecaps are for everybody. Changes in precipitation patterns are for everybody. Increased environmental refugees (staring already) are for everybody. More intense hurricanes are for everybody. Droughts are for everybody. Insect outbreaks are for everybody.  Wow. The gift that hits all of us. 


Richva, I find it ironic that nothappening is complaining about the money spent so far on climate change ($166 Billion, although I have doubts on the validity of this number coming from its source and the lack of details they offer) not realizing that is a drop in the bucket compared to the amounts that will have to spent due to the effects we will experience.  I'm a conservative and I understand the consequences. It would nice if others had the ability to think past the PROPAGANDA and understand what is involved.

Honored Social Butterfly

Sp362--It occurs to me that many of the things that I of late have seen representatives on the right do, is very shortsighted. I believe that shortsightedness  and the denial of scientific fact in both Republican representatives and their supporters is the answer to your question.

Gee, I miss having a real President!!
0 Kudos
543 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

Sp362--It occurs to me that many of the things that I of late  have seen representatives on the right do, is very shortsighted. I believe that shortsightedness  and the denial a scientific fact in both representatives and their supporters is the answer to your question.

Gee, I miss having a real President!!
0 Kudos
540 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@sp362 wrote:

Richva, I find it ironic that nothappening is complaining about the money spent so far on climate change ($166 Billion, although I have doubts on the validity of this number coming from its source and the lack of details they offer) not realizing that is a drop in the bucket compared to the amounts that will have to spent due to the effects we will experience.  I'm a conservative and I understand the consequences. It would nice if others had the ability to think past the PROPAGANDA and understand what is involved.


I appreciate your response. As an old conservative myself, I realize that we sometimes must spend money to actually conserve things. Thank you.  

 

Recognized Social Butterfly


@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

Fortunately this waste of taxpayer monies will end.


The waste of taxpayer money will never end - it is the nature of government.

 

As to climate change, I believe the efforts to clean up the environment will never end, and that is a good thing. What we will not be doing is send billions of taxpayer dollars to some global entity to be distributed around the world.


That's exactly what I was referring to is Climate Change (waste of money).  Taxing the U.S. and transferring the money to Africa will never solve anything (except to the left).


NOTHAPPENING,  Do you realize that included in the $166 Billion figure is the cost of giving taxpayers (mostly middle class) tax CREDITS (lower taxes) to install solar panels, windmills, etc.


So you approve of Government determining what is good and what is bad and using taxes to punish the users of "bad" and reward the users of "good"?  No people want dirty air yet carbon taxes don't cover dirty air, just CO2 and the left hasn't proved that man makes more than the least amount of greenhouse effect.  I'm all for solar panels without government subsidies.  If you can afford them, then do it (if it saves you money).  Windmills don't work when there is no wind, make a lot of noise, chop up the birds pretty well, and don't seem to have much favor in the ocean off the coast of Hyannisport.

 

I guess you must know by now that I'm not in favor of taxing some to give to others.


The point you seem to miss is that this "$166 Billion" is not climate change only.  This "study" did not explain how they came up with this number, the closest they came to explaining it was claiming that $26.1 Billion of the 2009 stimulus package was being spent on climate change.  I pasted a link on an earlier post to the package, why don't you look at it and see if you can find $26.1 Billion.

 

As far as taxing others, what about the subsidies we give to oil companies so they can charge cheaper prices?  Are you in favor of that?  How about the money we all pay to clean up from dirty industries that don't pay for it themselves?  You seem to have a very narrow view on what is taxing somebody else to give to others and keep insisting that because you don't like a program that would change it (there are other ways to do it), that it isn't happening.  So, now it is your turn to yell about money to Africa, as if that proves your point.

0 Kudos
521 Views
8
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@sp362 wrote:

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

Fortunately this waste of taxpayer monies will end.


The waste of taxpayer money will never end - it is the nature of government.

 

As to climate change, I believe the efforts to clean up the environment will never end, and that is a good thing. What we will not be doing is send billions of taxpayer dollars to some global entity to be distributed around the world.


That's exactly what I was referring to is Climate Change (waste of money).  Taxing the U.S. and transferring the money to Africa will never solve anything (except to the left).


NOTHAPPENING,  Do you realize that included in the $166 Billion figure is the cost of giving taxpayers (mostly middle class) tax CREDITS (lower taxes) to install solar panels, windmills, etc.


So you approve of Government determining what is good and what is bad and using taxes to punish the users of "bad" and reward the users of "good"?  No people want dirty air yet carbon taxes don't cover dirty air, just CO2 and the left hasn't proved that man makes more than the least amount of greenhouse effect.  I'm all for solar panels without government subsidies.  If you can afford them, then do it (if it saves you money).  Windmills don't work when there is no wind, make a lot of noise, chop up the birds pretty well, and don't seem to have much favor in the ocean off the coast of Hyannisport.

 

I guess you must know by now that I'm not in favor of taxing some to give to others.


The point you seem to miss is that this "$166 Billion" is not climate change only.  This "study" did not explain how they came up with this number, the closest they came to explaining it was claiming that $26.1 Billion of the 2009 stimulus package was being spent on climate change.  I pasted a link on an earlier post to the package, why don't you look at it and see if you can find $26.1 Billion.

 

As far as taxing others, what about the subsidies we give to oil companies so they can charge cheaper prices?  Are you in favor of that?  How about the money we all pay to clean up from dirty industries that don't pay for it themselves?  You seem to have a very narrow view on what is taxing somebody else to give to others and keep insisting that because you don't like a program that would change it (there are other ways to do it), that it isn't happening.  So, now it is your turn to yell about money to Africa, as if that proves your point.


Your guy Obama already wasted half a billion dollars on Climate Change and enough is enough.

 

The US government has given half a billion dollars to the UN's Green Climate Fund, just three days before Donald Trump takes office.

Barack Obama's outgoing administration announced the contribution of $500m (£406m; €468m) on Tuesday, bringing the total funds to date to $1bn.

Mr Obama pledged in 2014 to give $3bn to help tackle the effects of climate change in the poorest countries.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38661259

0 Kudos
520 Views
7
Report
Recognized Social Butterfly


@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@sp362 wrote:



The point you seem to miss is that this "$166 Billion" is not climate change only.  This "study" did not explain how they came up with this number, the closest they came to explaining it was claiming that $26.1 Billion of the 2009 stimulus package was being spent on climate change.  I pasted a link on an earlier post to the package, why don't you look at it and see if you can find $26.1 Billion.

 

As far as taxing others, what about the subsidies we give to oil companies so they can charge cheaper prices?  Are you in favor of that?  How about the money we all pay to clean up from dirty industries that don't pay for it themselves?  You seem to have a very narrow view on what is taxing somebody else to give to others and keep insisting that because you don't like a program that would change it (there are other ways to do it), that it isn't happening.  So, now it is your turn to yell about money to Africa, as if that proves your point.


Your guy Obama already wasted half a billion dollars on Climate Change and enough is enough.

 

The US government has given half a billion dollars to the UN's Green Climate Fund, just three days before Donald Trump takes office.

Barack Obama's outgoing administration announced the contribution of $500m (£406m; €468m) on Tuesday, bringing the total funds to date to $1bn.

Mr Obama pledged in 2014 to give $3bn to help tackle the effects of climate change in the poorest countries.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38661259


So you don't approve research and trying to invest in technologies of the future.  Research is one thing the Government should be investing in so we can remain a world leader.

 

You identified $1 Billion dollars spent on climate change, you only have $165 Billion to go to support the allegation that started this topic. 

 

You also don't seem to understand the costs of "clean-up" are always greater than not doing it in the first place.

0 Kudos
521 Views
6
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@sp362 wrote:

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@sp362 wrote:



The point you seem to miss is that this "$166 Billion" is not climate change only.  This "study" did not explain how they came up with this number, the closest they came to explaining it was claiming that $26.1 Billion of the 2009 stimulus package was being spent on climate change.  I pasted a link on an earlier post to the package, why don't you look at it and see if you can find $26.1 Billion.

 

As far as taxing others, what about the subsidies we give to oil companies so they can charge cheaper prices?  Are you in favor of that?  How about the money we all pay to clean up from dirty industries that don't pay for it themselves?  You seem to have a very narrow view on what is taxing somebody else to give to others and keep insisting that because you don't like a program that would change it (there are other ways to do it), that it isn't happening.  So, now it is your turn to yell about money to Africa, as if that proves your point.


Your guy Obama already wasted half a billion dollars on Climate Change and enough is enough.

 

The US government has given half a billion dollars to the UN's Green Climate Fund, just three days before Donald Trump takes office.

Barack Obama's outgoing administration announced the contribution of $500m (£406m; €468m) on Tuesday, bringing the total funds to date to $1bn.

Mr Obama pledged in 2014 to give $3bn to help tackle the effects of climate change in the poorest countries.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38661259


So you don't approve research and trying to invest in technologies of the future.  Research is one thing the Government should be investing in so we can remain a world leader.

 

You identified $1 Billion dollars spent on climate change, you only have $165 Billion to go to support the allegation that started this topic. 

 

You also don't seem to understand the costs of "clean-up" are always greater than not doing it in the first place.


I didn't start this topic so you may want to ask the "starter".  There's no "clean up" of CO2 since it is not a pollutant (except to liberals).  I am for wasting NO MONEY on Climate Change.  It will keep on changing no matter if you like it or not and won't be fixed by throwing money in the incinerator.

0 Kudos
516 Views
5
Report
Recognized Social Butterfly


@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@sp362 wrote:



So you don't approve research and trying to invest in technologies of the future.  Research is one thing the Government should be investing in so we can remain a world leader.

 

You identified $1 Billion dollars spent on climate change, you only have $165 Billion to go to support the allegation that started this topic. 

 

You also don't seem to understand the costs of "clean-up" are always greater than not doing it in the first place.


I didn't start this topic so you may want to ask the "starter".  There's no "clean up" of CO2 since it is not a pollutant (except to liberals).  I am for wasting NO MONEY on Climate Change.  It will keep on changing no matter if you like it or not and won't be fixed by throwing money in the incinerator.


If I remember right, you were claiming in another topic that CO2 was actually a good thing for plants because you use it in a highly controlled, tended growing environment inside of a greenhouse.  The earth is not a greenhouse and it has been proven long ago that it is an issue and is not a plus for plants. If that was not you, I apologize, but it does not change my point. 

You commented earlier that you were glad that we were no longer going to be spending this $166 Billion on climate change, so asking you to back-up where this figure comes from seems fair to me.

0 Kudos
512 Views
4
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@sp362 wrote:

You commented earlier that you were glad that we were no longer going to be spending this $166 Billion on climate change, so asking you to back-up where this figure comes from seems fair to me.


I never mentioned $166 billion so dream on or go check.  I did mention that your guy, Obama squandered $500 million which he gave to the U.N. to be given to Africa.  If you don't believe it, Google it.

Recognized Social Butterfly


@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

You commented earlier that you were glad that we were no longer going to be spending this $166 Billion on climate change, so asking you to back-up where this figure comes from seems fair to me.


I never mentioned $166 billion so dream on or go check.  I did mention that your guy, Obama squandered $500 million which he gave to the U.N. to be given to Africa.  If you don't believe it, Google it.


This is your comment from the SECOND post on this topic "Fortunately this waste of taxpayer monies will end."  Since the title of this topic includes the figure $166 Billion, it is logical that this is the figure you were commenting on.  So, again, you only have another $165 Billion to back up your claim.  We also spend far more than $500 Million a year in fossil fuel subsidies, but I don't see you screaming about that. 

0 Kudos
540 Views
2
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@sp362 wrote:

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

You commented earlier that you were glad that we were no longer going to be spending this $166 Billion on climate change, so asking you to back-up where this figure comes from seems fair to me.


I never mentioned $166 billion so dream on or go check.  I did mention that your guy, Obama squandered $500 million which he gave to the U.N. to be given to Africa.  If you don't believe it, Google it.


This is your comment from the SECOND post on this topic "Fortunately this waste of taxpayer monies will end."  Since the title of this topic includes the figure $166 Billion, it is logical that this is the figure you were commenting on.  So, again, you only have another $165 Billion to back up your claim.  We also spend far more than $500 Million a year in fossil fuel subsidies, but I don't see you screaming about that. 


Like I said, I never mentioned $166 billion but since the title includes that wording, that gives you authority to lie and say I said it.  WRONG again.  I don't believe in subsidies for fossil fuel, solar panels, or windmills FYI.

0 Kudos
741 Views
1
Report
Recognized Social Butterfly


@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

You commented earlier that you were glad that we were no longer going to be spending this $166 Billion on climate change, so asking you to back-up where this figure comes from seems fair to me.


I never mentioned $166 billion so dream on or go check.  I did mention that your guy, Obama squandered $500 million which he gave to the U.N. to be given to Africa.  If you don't believe it, Google it.


This is your comment from the SECOND post on this topic "Fortunately this waste of taxpayer monies will end."  Since the title of this topic includes the figure $166 Billion, it is logical that this is the figure you were commenting on.  So, again, you only have another $165 Billion to back up your claim.  We also spend far more than $500 Million a year in fossil fuel subsidies, but I don't see you screaming about that. 


Like I said, I never mentioned $166 billion but since the title includes that wording, that gives you authority to lie and say I said it.  WRONG again.  I don't believe in subsidies for fossil fuel, solar panels, or windmills FYI.


Ok I will take you at word that you didn't mean $166 Billion.  But if you are commenting on that figure maybe you should make your point clear instead of accusing me of lying about what you said.  So, how much money do you think has been "wasted" on climate change?

0 Kudos
734 Views
0
Report
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Does AARP donate to political parties or endorse candidates?

AARP is strictly non-partisan and always has been. We never endorse or donate to candidates, political parties or political action committees.

Learn more.

AARP Members Only Games

Play members only games, like FIll Ins, Lumeno, 2048 and a collaborative, multiplayer Let's Crossword.

Play Now
AARP Members Only Games Logos
AARP Rewards

Solve Crosswords. Earn Rewards. Activate AARP Rewards to earn points for games, quizzes and videos. Redeem for deals and discounts.

Get started with AARP Rewards now!
/html/assets/Rewards-program-badge-355x224.png