What is your input on grant money going into GW research?

Question

Do you feel it may be taking away from other areas?

Is enough being done on Imperiled Ecosystems or the Antarctic food chain?

http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=181816

Answer 1

It's highly unlikely to be taking funds from other areas, since Bush and his cronies have consistently tried to stifle global warming research for the past 7+ years.  The figures being given for it seem grossly inflated, as if Bush was counting the entire NASA and NOAA budget plus a few others.  He's simply trying to exaggerate the appearance that he's doing something about it (without actually having to do anything).

Ecosystems research and biology currently suffer because of who's in the White House.  Budget was taken from the Fish and Wildlife Service for example because they got in the way of business.  Staffing has been cut tremendously, and the few reamining biologists there regularly get instructed to reverse their findings; it's a farce.  Welcome to a Republican presidency.  Were you expecting something different?

If anything, the presence of global warming should result in increasing science budget so we can determine, track, and anticipate changes to ecosystems.  Understanding the Arctic seems pretty important right now as big changes are underway.

Ecosystems that are imperiled now could quickly get nudged over the edge by climate change, including some of the first of the 30% or more of all species that could perish.  We're not even seriously trying it save ourselves at the moment; there's no way we're going to be able to save significant numbers of the others (except of course a few of the cute, cuddly ones like baby polar bears).

It's an unpleasant situation; one that's only likely to get worse, but maybe someof the eco/bio funding will get restored by the next president..

In the meantime maybe we can preserve some of those Antarctic bacteria by giving them a home in yogurt cultures.  It could spawn some new flavors... blueberry - bluefish, mulberry - mackerel, cranberry - crab...

Answer 2

Nothing wrong with that.

Section 8 of the Constitution: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts"

Scientists shouldn't have to pander to Exxon Mobile and the Party of the Rich because conservatives don't want AGW to be true.

Answer 3

Grant money is the mother milk of those who subscribe to the myth of man made global warming. Those who don't produce suck at the teet of the earth religion for warm, soothing money to support their non-productive life style.

Answer 4

First of all, it depends on who's got the grant!  But assuming it's a worthy agency or group, the data acquired can be used to address issues in many areas.

By researching sustainable living, we can help developing nations skip the awkward, highly polluting stages of industrial development that most developed nations experienced.  By modelling projected impacts worldwide, we can prepare and adapt so that money is allocated up front, rather than as a reaction to a crisis that could have been mitigated or avoided completely.  (Think Katrina).

I think overall, that is is a worthy, long term investment with real and potential rewards across the board.

Is enough being spent on imperiled ecosystems? No, and money spent on preserving biological diversity has rewards in the fields of medicine (potential cures, for one) and in feeding current and future populations.  Research on oceanic food chains has increased markedly in recent decades, due to issues like overharvesting and pollution, so money allocated there is probably at least in the ballpark.

Your question has made me curious, too, on whether grants being awarded have actually shifted or narrowed their focus.  I might just have to check into that!  I'll get back to you if my research changes my answer!!!