Would you like to see reduced funding on climate science?

Question

Have a look at the presidential candidates on the following link to see how they stand on all the issues. I am leaning towards Ron Paul because, I think we spend way too much money on climate science and most government programs for that matter. I also like the idea of reducing our roll as "world police", but I'm not sure that a sudden withdrawl of the troops from Iraq is a good thing. Who do you like and why?

http://www.2decide.com/table.htm

Here is a Jay Leno interview with Ron Paul

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LZyHoAPL3M&feature=user

After all, "The science is settled".

There are private companies that specialize in climatology. Industries that have to make decisions based on climate forcasts can purchase reports when needed.

Answer 1

Yes - it should be eliminated.

Global warming believers say it's proved to be real. Since it's real, it requires no additional money to find out if it's real.

Research money would be better spent giving tax rebates to corporations who reduce co2 and other pollution.

Global warming scientist would do better advancing technology that provided solutions to the energy crisis, alternative fuels, and green house gas emission controls.

Face it, this would be a win-win situation.

Answer 2

I would like to see more funding to other processes of global warming instead of man causing it. The pro's have made there argument and can't do anything more or learn anything more. The only government money spent on climate study has been for pro AGWers. I would like for us to lead in world peace and your right we can't just up and leave Iraq b/c of the current state. It would be desert storm all over again. We should have done what was necessary then but no Bush Sr. had to back out on the rebels of Iraq and leave them to die. We have to slowly let Iraq deal with there own problems and be a policing group and thats it. Iraq is divided to much and you'll never have peace with so many different tribes in one country. As for our next President.. God help us is all I have to say!!

Answer 3

Climate science funding is minuscule compared to many other fields of science. And acknowledging that Global Warming is real doesn't end the benefits of our understanding our climate better. Because climate conditions are long-term processes, we need to understand potential dangers/risks to our climate, so funding should continue.

Answer 4

Regardless of whether you believe mankind is affecting climate or not, are you really unable to appreciate that understanding climate, including its natural variability, is enormously important for modern society? For example, being able to determine, in advance, when regions might undergo prolonged drought and subsequent famine due to crop failure, would be useful in reducing death and political destabilization. Defunding "climate science" is colossally stupid, especially with the centralization of agriculture, our dependence on a very few crops for the bulk of our calories, and the increasing stress water shortages are having on societies. If Paul's position is to drastically reduce funding for geophysical research, it represents such a shallow technical understanding of the issues we are going to face I would be extremely hesitant to give him my support.

Answer 5

Absolutely not. Just another reason not to support Ron "Government Should Be Abolished" "Libertarian In Republican Clothing" Paul.

I support John Edwards because he has the most thorough plan to deal with global warming.

Answer 6

Yeah, wouldn't anarchy be great?

Make up the rules as you go along...

EVERY MAN AND WOMEN FOR YOURSELF!

I always wanted to get in a time machine to return to the Dark Ages... NOT !!!