"Climate" change research gets plenty of funding. Sadly, it draws from funding normally allocated to important medical/technology research that aims to enhance our quality of life.
Well,
this suggests we're spending ~$12 billion yearly (plus additional spending) on climate change. Funny how, Trump is more than willing to cut ~$5 billion for his wall from the military. So, if we pretend we do have such specific funds, why not take another $12 billion from the military? I mean, that's the problem with the argument if you're just upset we're not using said money on other things like medical/technology research.
Eh... scientific theories are, and will always be up for debate.
The unfortunate matter, as you illustrate here, is that "climate" change became a political matter. Any serious discussion of the topic is usually obscured by some partisan political agenda.
Theories are always up for debate, but there's no one making any sort of compelling scientific argument against climate change. The rate, the scale of the risk, and the economic cost? Sure. But not that it's happening. As for it becoming a political matter, so did cigarettes. Hell, the government supplied cigarettes to its troops at a time when it become more and more obvious that cigarettes cause cancer. The political motivation to do anything substantial about it took decades.
When it comes to burning oil/coal/natural gas instead of cigarettes and it's not something we can "trivially" quit? Of course there's going to be massive resistance with strawmen created and burned--at least that's carbon neutral--because those arguing for change get massive resistance. Admittedly, the extreme doomsday stuff is overblown, but the opposite side of that is the inertia that refuses to do *anything* because they perceive any efforts to switch to other energy sources, more efficiency, etc as somehow a reduction in quality of life. It's honestly insane when 90% of the goal is to maintain or grow the standard of living while switching to a much more carbon neutral energy base.
I get where the fear comes from. Some of the inertia comes from lobbying, but I think it also heavily comes from the mindset that "oil is good" and something we can't live without. Change is difficult, it rarely is done smoothly, there's almost always multiple false starts for anything massive and complex, and we don't like the disruption while ignoring the disruption is coming whether we change or not. That's what climate change is all about: the climate is changing if we keep doing business as usual, and eventually that will translate into all the problems above but it won't be on a controllable timetable. It'd be, instead, things that could go a lot worse*.
If your standing out in the sun all day begging, then you should be able to be at-least a walmart greeter.
There aren't enough walmarts for all the beggers. Hell, plenty of walmarts don't even have greeters because they don't want to have to pay for another warm body. That is how many companies go.
* Actually watching the Irish Potato Famine on Extra History lately. I think most countries have the food stores to buffer probably years of problem, and even today we have overproduction of things like milk/cheese. The US is notorious for dumping agricultural goods on a lot of countries, and they may paradoxically buffer the risks of climate change. But the US is draining massive aquifers (another issue) and climate change will effect the US too. I guess for at least most everyone in the Senate, it won't be their problem; they'll likely be dead well before the worst of it comes.
