The Rabett shatters his New Years Resolution....

A few months ago, in a post entitled, whom the government would destroy they first defund, Eli point to an article by Jim Hansen in World Watch which explains how NASA's 2006 budget for Earth Sciences was cut 20% without anyone noticing.

When the administration announced its planned fiscal 2007 budget. NASA science was listed as having typical changes of 1 percent or so. However, Earth Science research actually had a staggering reduction of about 20 percent from the 2006 budget. How could that be accomplished? Simple enough: reduce the 2006 research budget retroactively by 20 percent! One-third of the way into fiscal year 2006, NASA Earth Science was told to go figure out how to live with a 20-percent loss of the current year’s funds.

But why do this

One way to avoid bad news:stop the measurements! Only hitch: the first line of the NASA mission is “to understand and protect our home planet.”Maybe that can be changed to “...protect special interests’backside.”

So, why double post (other than the neat cartoon from the article, there is another one btw) Well, the big bird flew in from Boulder breathless with news. After feeding Eth some chocolate covered liver we discovered that the keen researchers at the Science Policy Institute had figured out that reductions in Climate Science Funding were just as bad in the Clinton years as under Bush Co, and how unscientificintegrety it was to criticize dear leader and Uncle Dick for chopping science:

From 1995 to 2001:

Climate science funding was cut from $2.234B to $1.886B (constant dollars), representing a cut of 15.6%. With respect to climate science funding as a proportion of domestic discretionary spending the cut is 23%.

Data from Rick Piltz's testimony and the Congressional Budget Office. Note that funding in 2000 and 2001 are virtually identical.

If the Bush Administration's cuts represent an assault on scientific integrity, then why wouldn't the larger cuts by the Clinton Administration also fall under that same category?

In my mind, conflating research budgets with heavy-handed Bush Administration communication policies is a mistake.

Now, in spite of temptation, Eli has been trying to resist piling on Roger. As a matter of fact he thought that some of the criticisms on this blog and elsewhere were, shall we say, a bit to enthusiastic at whacking the pinata. He was tempted mind you, and the occasional side swipe en passant did pass through his paws, but on the whole he has been trying to be as good as he can be. John Fleck almost turned the trick with his offer

1. jfleck Says: January 30th, 2007 at 5:53 pm

   I think I’m gonna start a new “Pielke watch” feature on Inkstain, where I highlight people going all apoplectic about Roger. That guy’s like waving a red rag in front of you guys.

2. Eli Rabett Says: January 30th, 2007 at 7:12 pm

   You want me to break my New Year’s resolution again? I go on the wagon and you guys drag out the booze.

   Esteemed Coney

But ears over eyes the Rabett held out another week, even said some nice (for Eli) things about Roger, took Eth out for some exercise to hold down his energy level and such, until the above exchange started his whiskers twitching, and when whiskers twitch they must be twirled, so let us, as they say RTFR cited from today's Senate Commerce Committee testimony by Rick Pilz.

Funding for Global Change Research under the CCSP and USGCRP, Fiscal Years 1989 - 2008 (millions of dollars) funding

Fiscal Year	Actual $	Constant (2005) $
1989	134	209
1990	659	975
1991	954	1,355
1992	1,110	1,531
1993	1,326	1,775
1994	1,444	1,885
1995	1,760	2,234
1996	1,654	2,039
1997	1,656	1,995
1998	1,677	1,989
1999	1,657	1,925
2000	1,687	1,896
2001	1,728	1,886
2002	1,667	1,792
2003	1,766	1,857
2004	1,977	2,023
2005	1,865	1,865
2006 (estimate)	1,709	1,674
2007 (request)	1,715	1,643

Climate Research funding increased strongly in the years of Bush I and for the first three years of the Clinton presidency. In FY 1996, it took a huge cut from 2.234 B$ to $2,039 and then declined slowly to 1886 in 2001. Eli took these figures to the local financial advisor. Ms. Rabett pointed out that something happened in 1995:

The Republicans took the US House and Senate genius.

Since the FY 2005 budget started in Oct. 2004, that was the last budget passed by the Democratic Congress. Those are the cuts of Newt Gingrich and Co. Given the choice they would have zeroed it out. To put not to a fine point on it, the 2001 budget was the last Clinton budget, so it is not so surprising that the budgets for FY2000 and FY 2001 are the same. While it is a bit harder to attribute the increase in FY2004 to the Democratic controlled Senate about to go glug, the thought occurs.

Now this passing thought should have occured to any policy wonk you'd find sleeping on a steam grate in DC, but why spoil a good post?