It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
reply to post by BritofTexas
Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by DexterRiley
That said, I don't think that a transition has to be painful. I think we are perfectly capable of maintaining the progress we have made in the industrial revolution and can continue progressing in a renewable revolution. The only thing that really needs to change is our energy sources.
The IPCC defines mitigation as activities that reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, or enhance the capacity of carbon sinks to absorb GHGs from the atmosphere.
Originally posted by Kali74
I appreciate that you acknowledge the Science. But you lost me a bit, well I get lost in general when I come across this notion of the solutions being Fascist or tools of the NWO. We can cut our emissions without great pains. The current World Order is extremely dependent on fossil fuels, that's why the Fossil Fuels Industry are the major players of this World Order, that's how they're able to control the conversation and deny the science so strongly.
Here's my conspiracy theory on AGW... through denialism and lies about alternatives (paid for by Exxon, Koch Industries et al) we do nothing, the planet continues to warm, coastal cities world wide begin to flood, drought wreaks havoc on our food supplies, glaciers that once provided fresh water to billions are gone. All of this will force massive migrations on every populated continent. Who will control those migrations and resettlements? The militaries of the world and imagine the wars we fight then.
So, are there big bucks to be had in climate science? Since it doesn't have a lot of commercial appeal, most of the people working in the area, and the vast majority of those publishing the scientific literature, work in academic departments or at government agencies. Penn State, home of noted climatologists Richard Alley and Michael Mann, has a strong geosciences department and, conveniently, makes the department's salary information available. It's easy to check, and find that the average tenured professor earned about $120,000 last year, and a new hire a bit less than $70,000.
It's also worth pointing out what they get that money for, as exemplified by a fairly typical program announcement for NSF grants. Note that it calls for studies of past climate change and its impact on the weather. This sort of research could support the current consensus view, but it just as easily might not. And here's the thing: it's impossible to tell before the work's done. Even a study looking at the flow of carbon into and out of the atmosphere, which would seem to be destined to focus on anthropogenic climate influences, might identify a previously unknown or underestimated sink or feedback.
So, even if the granting process were biased (and there's been no indication that it is), there is no way for it to prevent people from obtaining contrary data. The granting system is also set up to induce people to publish it, since a grant that doesn't produce scientific papers can make it impossible for a professor to obtain future funding.
Maybe the money is in the perks that come with grants, which provide for travel and lab toys. Unfortunately, there's no indication that there's lots of money out there for the taking, either from the public or private sector. For the US government, spending on climate research across 13 different agencies (from the Department of State to NASA) is tracked by the US Climate Change Science Program. The group has tracked the research budget since 1989, but not everything was brought under its umbrella until 1991. That year, according to CCSP figures, about $1.45 billion was spent on climate research (all figures are in 2007 dollars). Funding peaked back in 1995 at $2.4 billion, then bottomed out in 2006 at only $1.7 billion.