1. spending money on research that is said to be settled is a paradox.

2 this money ends up in negative actions not positive (taxes emission controls etc) a positive action would be something like planting trees to limit CO2 which would create jobs

3 there is not worldwide agreement on CO2 controls so it is not a level playing field. giving countries like China and India an advantage

4 by increasing energy costs, it is making us uncompetitive.

5 by being uncompetitive it means we end up importing products from companies that don't control CO2, in other words we are outsourcing CO2 (and jobs)

6 the temperature has not increased for the last 15yrs, if global warming is real (not yet proven) it is not very sensitive

Since it is debate you need to tell the points against spending money on researching. You can include points like:

1. Spending money on researches will not solve the problem.

2. The main cause of Climate changes are human activities. So instead of spending money for researches control the activities which cause the problem.

3. You can include the quote which means action is important not words.

4. By researching till this time there is no any change

5. There are many problem faced by countries, in health, education, economy etc.

6. If only concentrated on researches we will face a lots of problems in economy, poverty we can control.

A major problem for you:

Government efforts to better economies have a miserable track record, with mixed results at best.

Basic scientific research has consistently shown the highest return on investment of any human activity.

First - If the US cannot afford both then it is too late to worry about either.

Second - Since no economy in the world exists independently of climate, how do you know that your choice will help and not hurt the economy?

Third - Do you make the same choice for both the short-term and long-term?

Fourth - What does "bettering our economy" mean - exactly? How will you use the extra money? What empirical evidence and economic theory are you basing your decision on? What makes you think it will work? What variables will you monitor and measure to determine if your plan is working? What do you do if you interim assessments do meet your goals? Do you make a change or just keep pumping in more money? How and at what point will you be able to know whether you have succeeded or failed?

======

kane --

>>. spending money on research that is said to be settled is a paradox<<

In a general sense, you are right - But, assuming you are talking about global warming - show an example of any RFP for research to prove that AGW is real. Show an example of federal research money being given to someone to prove whether AGW is real.

That day is long past. No one is getting money to figure out if the earth orbits the sun - and no one is getting money to figure out if global warming is real. In both cases, (1) the earth orbiting the sun and (2) AGW are the accepted scientific theories. Scientists receive money to better under the processes and details of how those things work - not whether or not they are real.

Banks are the problem and not Global warming. The Federal Reserve Bank (which is a private corporation and has stockholders) is flooding the whole system with money because people like Obama have no clue about how economic systems work in a positive manner (positive cash flow). Spending money is easy when the Government has an endless credit card and has laws that pay people for doing nothing to enhance an economy. Our Government borrows almost a trillion dollars every year lately because we have established laws that force the Government to pay for things needlessly. We've had this problem since we adopted the Federal Reserve System back in 1913 (The Federal Reserve Act of 1913). Maybe when you understand how the banking elites work, then you will understand why people have no money with all of their hard work. Our current low interest rates are so low because the banks are in control. The funny part about the great bailout of the banks is that it was financed by the banks and Government debt (which was (and still is) financed by the banks).

Global Warming Research Spending is just a small part of a bigger scam by our own Government's making. I'm not saying that the research is a scam. I've found that there is a lot of good research going on, but much of it is perpetuated by people's inability to contradict it. Banks finance most of the Global Warming Research. Not the Government. Global warming is only another way for the banks to reach into the Government's pockets while we focus on a natural warming trend (which does happen) and think it's caused by us.

We can easily get rid of most of our Government debt by abolishing the Federal Reserve and start printing United States Dollars (we currently print Federal Reserve Notes controlled by the Federal Reserve Bank under the direction of our Government (supposedly). This would mean that we would have to get rid of centralized banking and find a way to trust our elected officials to control our money supply. Our Government has no control as of now. That power is currently in the hands of the Federal Reserve Bank and all of the central banks like Citibank, Chase Bank, Bank of America, etc....).

People wanting things on credit has caused this problem and our Government has been built on this concept for years. Look back a few years (30 to 40) and you will see home mortgage interest rates at 10% to 15% for 30 years. Amortize it and see what people use to pay. Monetary elites have control over the issues like Global Warming. Most media outlets are totally in debt to centralized banks.

People are concentrating on a warming trend on our planet. No one is concentrating on the fact that CO2 is a very beneficial aspect of all of life. We have a great communication system which is currently instantaneous (one can talk to someone that is on the opposite side of the Planet like they are right next to them). What I find funny about that is; that people as a volume only take up less than 1/3rd of one cubic mile. How significant is that when we are talking about humans controlling the atmosphere? CO2 is a very small part of what is driving the climate's temperature!

Given that the lions share of the money spent on "climate research" is for data aquisition, or in other words, weather reports, you should consider whether we want to stop getting weather reports.

No disrespect to your teacher, but this is a quite stupid debate topic. What is spent funding climate science research is a miniscule drop in the bucket of the overall U.S. or global economy. Financing our misguided military interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan for one day costs the American taxpayer more than climate science research for a whole year, and I am not aware that helping prepare Iraq for the next (more likely pro-Iranian) Saddam should be a top "priority," or that the Taliban have in any lasting sense been defeated in Afghanistan after more than a decade of massive U.S. military presence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_pol...

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=XOM+Key+...

According to the GAO, the US provided $31.1 million to the IPCC over the 10-year period from 2001-2010 - or $3,1 million/year.

http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-43