Sentences with phrase «money for climate research»

I have read somewhere that money for climate research had increased significantly over the past years, but then I haven't checked the data.

Such a policy would dry up money for climate research more than anything i can think of.

Three - quarters of voters think it is a bad idea to cut money for climate research, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released yesterday.

Not exact matches

The Globe «s Jeffrey Simpson offers Canadian politicians plaudits for the following good deeds: Ed Stelmach's decision to fund research into carbon capture and storage; Dalton McGuinty's decision to protect the boreal forest (because «untouched forests are wonderful carbon sinks») and to sign on to the Western Climate Initiative; Stephen Harper for agreeing to pour money into Ontario infrastructure; and the premiers for finally agreeing «that within one sovereign country, there ought to be as few obstacles to the movement of people and capital as possible.»

Huge amounts of money are available from governments and wealthy foundations for climate institutes and for climate - related research.

White House Budget Director Mick Mulvaney told reporters Tuesday that the government has been spending too much money on climate change and Trump's proposed budget intentionally rebukes the Obama administration's support for federally funded climate research.

The language on a climate bill and President Obama's preferred mechanism for raising money to invigorate energy research and development appears to have vanished, Jenkins writes.

It gives the impression that we're getting rich collecting grant money for climate studies (or any other research, for that matter).

If you're trying to stop global warming, then you want more money for carbon sequestration research, and you don't care how much is spent on climate research.

[Response: The point is that if climate researchers were really in this for the money, they would all be saying how uncertain everything was and pressing the «we must do more research».

As for the «cash spigot», the pot of money and prestige available to research supporting extreme climate change scenarios is orders of magnitude larger than the pot available to research supporting moderate scenarios.

Given the huge sums of money involved in funding climate research and the even larger sums being spent on the assumption that it gives us good guidance for practical decisions, it may be time for some very large experimental chambers to be constructed to test the presumptions of the device of using forcings as an tractable way of including changes in atmospheric composition in climate models.

I would interested to know the trends in (1) the total amount of grant money over the years for climate research, (2) the number of climate researchers and (3) the ratio of funding from government / academic to private sources.

I differ too in that I'm an environmentalist and think generally global warming is a farce and we'd be better to spend the money on stopping pollution of rivers and oceans, buying the amazon, and researching and finding action plans for when oceans do rise, as they will one day, man made climate change or not.

C. Technically, it is still possible to solve the climate problem, but there are two essential requirements: (1) a simple across - the - board (all fossil fuels) rising carbon fee [2] collected from fossil fuel companies at the domestic source (mine or port of entry), not a carbon price «scheme,» and the money must go to the public, not to government coffers, otherwise the public will not allow the fee to rise as needed for phase - over to clean energy, (2) honest government support for, rather than strangulation of, RD&D (research, development and demonstration) of clean energy technologies, including advanced generation, safe nuclear power.

Just when we thought the op - ed letter couldn't get worse, these fake skeptics have the gall to suggest that we «follow the money,» because climate «alarmism» supposedly brings bountiful research funding, «an excuse for governments to raise taxes», «big donations» for environmental groups, and other similar tinfoil - hattery.

And why would scientists want to bother working for $ 70k per year doing climate research just for the money.

I found that the amount of money available in the fossil fuel - related industries (coal, oil, and natural gas production, transportation, and immediate consumption) exceeded the money available for academic and government - funded climate research by approximately 2,500 times.

There is so little money in climate science in general that any scientist who goes into climate research for the money should have his or her head examined.

Vastly larger sums of money are involved: $ 9 billion in 2009 for climate change and renewable energy research alone.

In fact, if one digs deeply enough, I'm confident that significant money (more than just millions) moves among the Fenton - affiliated organizations, NGOs like WWF, radical groups and left - of - center politicians, campaigners and, indeed, probably funding for academic research into climate «disruption», which may be a Fenton - coined term.

Cuccinelli, who believes the jury is still out on whether climate change is caused by human activity, has said he is investigating whether Mann defrauded taxpayers when seeking state grant money for his research.

Peter Lang says: «It is a waste to continue throwing money at poorly directed research as the developed world has been doing with climate research for the past two or three decades.»

Therefore, IMO, it is a waste to continue throwing money at poorly directed research as the developed world has been doing with climate research for the past two or three decades.

How do we get back all that money we've had taken from us by our governments and spunked on their cronies at Solyndra and BrightSource or thrown casually into grants for junk science research like «ocean acidification» or squandered on shysters at tainted institutions like NASA, NOAA and the Royal Society or wasted on anti-capitalist bureaucracies like the EPA and the Department of Energy and Climate Change?

President Bush plans to use a Rose Garden speech on global warming policy today to propose several ways to improve the situation, government officials say, including an increase in money for basic climate research and an effort to coordinate American climate - modeling efforts with those abroad.

· Scrutinize the $ 2.5 billion currently earmarked for the USGCRP and its programs, reduce the allocation to compel a slow - down in EPA's excessive regulatory programs, and direct that a significant portion of that money support research into natural causes of climate change; and

We reported, for example, on Sir David King's advocacy for just such a linear model of research funding when he argued that the money spent on the Large Hadron Collider would be better spent saving the climate.

In case you fail to follow my link, let me summarize — no tier one research university (and in the field of climate science and meteorology, Penn State is arguably the top research university in the country) would risk their reputation and the research grant money that reputation brings into the institution for any researcher, especially one who brought in such a minuscule percentage of the total grants made to Penn State.

For good measure he also throws in a conspiracy theory by claiming that climate modelers only want to scare people, because they wouldn't get money for their research otherwiFor good measure he also throws in a conspiracy theory by claiming that climate modelers only want to scare people, because they wouldn't get money for their research otherwifor their research otherwise.

Climate change and global warming scientists seeking grants for continuing research use computer model simulations to fabricate justify why they need more budget monies from the government - it is a constant doomsday whining that inflicts (and impacts) the entire science community.

«We think not — and we are prepared to bet serious money on this,» say the scientists, led by Stefan Rahmstorf, professor of physics of the oceans at Germany's Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, in a comment posted at realclimate.org /

Ryan Stotland, self - confessed TreeHugger fan, decided to take four months this fall and travel roughly 12,000 km around South America to raise money for Climate Change and Cancer Research, as well as just see if he could do it.

And is the belief of 97.5 % of climate scientologists in CAGW based on the need for there to be a scare for research money to continue to flow to climate scientology research?

etc for UKMO code, the fact that Piers Corbyn forbids discussion of his data without a license agreement and has continually failed to describe his model (let alone show the code) is deemed acceptable because he's a private company and he wants to make money from his work (though how this gels with USians wanting UK model code which can otherwise be sold to reduce the tax load of climate research for UK taxpayers, I can not say).

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in 2017 has requested, as a part of their requested $ 5.8 billion dollar budget, $ 520 million for the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR) an increase of $ 30.7 million from last years budget for their 33 in house climate scientists and whomever else they throw money to.