Maxx
Lv 7
Maxx asked in EnvironmentGlobal Warming · 9 years ago

How much public and/or private money is being spent in the U.S. on AGW research and/or support each year?

-------------------

Update:

-------------------

Gringo - you scoffed at all of my numbers, even the ones from Leftist sources. So how much do you think it is? What is your ballpark figure of U.S. Government spending for AGW research and related each year?

-------------------

Update 2:

Gringo - OK, that's fine, I hear you loud and clear. You are saying organizations that disagree with your point of view should not be allowed to spend any money to bring their point of view into the public square. Even if the the other side receives billions in public funds. You are a tyrant that does not believe in free speech, just like the majority of Warmist/Leftist. I fully understand.

-------------------

Update 3:

Dook - if that's true and I'll take your word on it, that would still make them the exception and not the rule, wouldn't it?

-------------------

7 Answers

Relevance
  • Bob
    Lv 6
    9 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    To Much. That is the first thing that should be cut from the budget to save money.

  • Anonymous
    9 years ago

    And why is government spending money on understanding atmospheric physics a bad thing? Is government itself inherently evil? If you believe that, you are an anarchist.

    http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/amer...

    <You are a tyrant that does not believe in free speech,>

    That coming from someone who wants to jail scientists.

    http://ca.answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Am...

    <if that's true and I'll take your word on it, that would still make them the exception and not the rule>

    Exception to what? When scientists accept government grants, their legal obligation is to study whatever the grant is to study and to publish whatever results are supported by the data. If their bosses don't like the results of the research, tough. If James Hansen, number 3 on the denialist hate list behind Michael Mann and Al Gore paid attention to what his bosses want, he would have supported Dubbya's decision to withdraw from Kyoto. That's what his bosses wanted.

    " 51 “You stiff-necked people! Your hearts and ears are still uncircumcised. You are just like your ancestors: You always resist the Holy Spirit! 52 Was there ever a prophet your ancestors did not persecute? They even killed those who predicted the coming of the Righteous One. And now you have betrayed and murdered him— 53 you who have received the law that was given through angels but have not obeyed it.” (Acts 7:51-53)

    Gringo

    Madd Maxx would call Jesus a Communist.

    http://ca.answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Aj...

    <It's like comparing what the Discovery Institute pays to Creationists with what the US Government has spend to date on scientific research in the field of Evolutionary Biology (though this is perhaps not a very good example given the fact that you are a self-confessed creationist).>

    A better example would be to compare tobacco company spending with what the U. S. government spends on medical research.

  • 9 years ago

    Tyndall and Arrhenius got no U.S. funding to support their climate research.

    Science does not depend on your ignorance, Maxx. Or on the anti-science crap videos you endlessly hawk here.

    Edit: NO Maxx (to this additional question "that would still make them the exception"). The science is factual reality. It is independent of funding. The funding can play a role in helping to discover the science, but as it actually happened (i.e. the history of climate change research which you deniers are mostly utterly ignorant of, but often just lie about regardless), the basic theory of greenhouse warming preceded any US funding.

    http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm

    This is quite different from the fake-science you have been bamboozled by.

    http://www.newsweek.com/2007/08/13/the-truth-about...

    http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/12/on...

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

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

  • 9 years ago

    "AGW research and related "

    Nice handwave, there.

    Do you mean Naval funded ice dynamics studies, including the operating costs of the military subs that are some of the instrument platforms?

    Do you mean experimentation in construction techniques for melting permafrost areas?

    Do you mean collecting information on weather systems, ocean currents, aerosols, clouds, glacier dynamics, atmospheric radiation transfer, solar activity, sunspots?

    Do you mean geological research into past climate conditions?

    How about the cost of earth observation satellites?

    Are you including crop yield studies and forestry dynamics?

    Does research into cleaner and more efficient fuel use count?

    Does your dismissal of AGW make any of this research less valuable?

    As of 2007 total U.S govt. funding for all scientific research was about $100 billion, with industry spending about another $270 billion. The ROI of basic scientific research has never been surpassed.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Gringo
    Lv 6
    9 years ago

    That is a strange question coming from you when in another question (from me) you claimed to know the answer.

    But I know where you are going. You want to counter the Heartland Institute little AGW skeptics funding scheme discovered recently and somehow show that what Heartland pays its 'skeptics' is peanuts when compared with what the US government spends on AGW research each year.

    Again, you are comparing apples and oranges, primarily because the AGW skeptics funded by Heartland and similar hardly do any scientific research at all; their actions are limited to repeating climate myths, distortions and lies debunked ages ago.

    It's like comparing what the Discovery Institute pays to Creationists with what the US Government has spend to date on scientific research in the field of Evolutionary Biology (though this is perhaps not a very good example given the fact that you are a self-confessed creationist).

    One cannot compare actual science with propaganda yet that is exactly what you try to do here.

    Edit @ Maxx:

    <<Gringo - you scoffed at all of my numbers>>

    Your numbers? Or Heartless Institute funded SPPI numbers?

    <<even the ones from Leftist sources>>

    To you, even the Old Testament would be Leftist.

    <<So how much do you think it is? What is your ballpark figure of U.S. Government spending for AGW research and related each year?>>

    I don't care for I am able to accept the outcome of their scientific research, no matter what. That does not mean I like it.

    You on the other hand cannot accept the outcome of the research and thus hype industry funded paid fake skeptics' opinion pieces on the issue and want us all to believe that the Heartless Institute paying a couple of million bucks per year is some sort of counter-balance for the billions of dollars spend on government funded scientific research. It is not.

    One cannot compare Science with Propaganda, particularly when that propaganda is industry funded.

  • Rio
    Lv 6
    9 years ago

    ~$30b for 13 agencies using government math. Another $249b using recovering/state allocations from federal funds.

    >sorry that would be tax dollars.

  • 9 years ago

    Why too much. We could be putting that money toward legitimate uses.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.