and cash to pocket .
I agree with the continued research. It's finding the limitations of CO2 warming. CO2 warming is limited to the amount of infrared rays to be absorbed. Infrared rays are limited and warming is limited to that aspect. When more papers backing this truth are presented and establish it, there will be less reason to fund it.
---------------------------------------...
Pegminer - I agree with your answer, yet I take issue with saying that Bush was a conservative. Both Sr and Jr are both progressives. If you remember back in the latter part of Bush Sr's only term as President, he signed the Agenda 21 Initiative set forth by the United Nations. His vision of a "new world order". His son followed that up with backing the UN also. They are both far from being conservative.
Current climate research is about how the environment will change. That change is upon us, and that warming is mostly or all due to human, is settled and has been well settled for at least six years.
Among the decisions that have to be made based on research and future expectations:
which crops to crow in each agriculture area; the benefits of crop specialization versus diversity
how to manage water, where and weather to build more water reservoirs where rain and snow pack are diminishing
whether and how to replace hydro power after losses due to water changes. Lake Mead might not have enough water in a decade to turn turbines on Boulder Dam mean that loss of 30% of power in the SW
where climate change is likely to cause political unrest and how to adjust military preparation
what mitigating infrastructure to build: how to protect shorelines, how to keep the NY subways from flooding again, how high to build sea walls
what food sources are being harmed and how to protect them: shellfish are at risk from acidification, fish and birds are changing migration patterns, the agriculture heartland is getting less rain
Because this is money that would be spent with or without global warming. Knowledge of atmospheric science and climate is extremely valuable--it's worth way more than the billions that may be spent studying it.
Why don't financial "conservatives" compare the money to the 2 TRILLION dollars spent on the idiotic Iraq War--thank you George Bush.
You missed Tony Blair and President Obama off that list. If they said it was settled science and it wasn't, then they were lying. You have solved the question of who in climate, science are the liars? The earths climate is proving them and their computer Models, all wrong at the present time.
Not everyone who tunes into the weather channel wants to see a test pattern.
Great point!
We not spending this much monety to research on say the wheel, except how to build better ones, where the science is settled. Everyone knows very well what the benefits of the wheel are...
Why spend money researching something you already know and understand???
Evolution is "established science"--does that mean the biology department of every university should be closed?
A heliocentric solar system is "established science"--does that mean the astronomy department of every university should be closed?
Generally, what is meant by "established science" is something like "We know enough about this to be fairly sure we have the basics down", not "We know everything there is to know about this". At this point, global warming research is not about the basic mechanism that is causing global warming (that is, the anthropogenically enhanced greenhouse effect). It is either about trying to fine tune our understanding of the various feedbacks, subsystems, and the like, so that we have a better understanding of how much warming is likely to occur, and how the actual weather/climate results are likely to be distributed; or, it's about figuring out the real-world effects of projected warming, things like how crops are likely to react to changing conditions, so that we can be better prepared for the results.
Those endowment funds make it possible for the universities to have tuition low enough that the next generation of scientists can be trained. You seem to be very willing to spend someone else's money for what you want.
In addition, we need the best possible data to counteract the propaganda put out by big oil and the others who want to continue doing business in the same (cheap) irresponsible way.
The invasion of Normandy was successful because the scientist had studied and understood the tides. Research on climate and weather and the Earth is vitally important to our security and our food production. The research would need to be done and would be done even if there were no one doubting the scientific evidence. The fact that our legislatures and governments tend to doubt the scientific evidence, makes it even more imperative.
A silly "question."
Should we have stopped funding AIDS research in the 1980s after it was scientifically determined that the HIV was the agent of AIDS, just because a few kooks denied that basic science?
Your denier-blog list of politicians is of course irrelevant and lame trickery. If you wanted to know how well the science of heart disease is established would you consult a list of champion scrabble players?
Here is what TOP SCIENTISTS have concluded after a century of MASSIVE and solid scientific research (U.S. National Academy of Sciences, 2010):
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record...
“Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems.”
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpine...
“Choices made now about carbon dioxide emissions reductions will affect climate change impacts experienced not just over the next few decades but also in coming centuries and millennia…Because CO2 in the atmosphere is long lived, it can effectively lock the Earth and future generations into a range of impacts, some of which could become very severe.”
http://www.physics.fsu.edu/awards/NAS/
“The Academy membership is composed of approximately 2,100 members and 380 foreign associates, of whom nearly 200 have won Nobel Prizes. Members and foreign associates of the Academy are elected in recognition of their distinguished and continuing achievements in original research; election to the Academy is considered one of the highest honors that can be accorded a scientist or engineer.”
And these links explain where the anti-science deception you've been duped by comes from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_o...
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc...
http://www.newsweek.com/2007/08/13/the-t...
http://video.pbs.org/video/2295533310/
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011...
... ...
... ... ...
Taxpayer Dollars on Global Warming research??? Why don't some of the universities cut loose some of their endowment accounts to fund it and give the taxpayers a break??!!
Just a few of those who have suggested that the 'evidence'/'science' is settled or established:
Clinton and Gore
Robert Watson
Stu Eizenstat
Dr Kurt M. Cuffey
John Quiggin, economist
David Milliband, UK Environment Minister
Camilla Cavendish
AGW is a libtard religious belief, that fact has already been proven.
