Science funding doesn't actually work in the way some skeptics here seem to think it does. Science is highly specialised. So, let's suppose I'm a climatologist. My specific area of research, let's imagine, is in examining carbon isotope ratios in fossilized leaves which, I hope, will give me a...
Best answer: No.
Science funding doesn't actually work in the way some skeptics here seem to think it does. Science is highly specialised. So, let's suppose I'm a climatologist. My specific area of research, let's imagine, is in examining carbon isotope ratios in fossilized leaves which, I hope, will give me a proxy measurement of CO2 levels over the past 400 million years. I write a funding proposal where I outline what I want to study, why I want to study it, what it might add to the scientific understanding, how much cash I'll need, and what I'm going to spend the money on. A funding agency reads the proposal and then decides how much to give me or whether to fund me at all. Nowhere in the funding proposal do I state my conclusions *before* I've done the research.
So, the point is, this idea that people are being funded to study 'global warming' is clap-trap. It's much more specific than that. Also, since nowhere do I have to conclude anything before doing the research, there's nothing to stop me drawing a conclusion that the funding agency may not like. The fact that I draw a conclusion they don't like doesn't impact my future funding because funding agencies bring on academics to examine the proposals, and there's no guarantee I'll get the same academics next time. The funding I do get doesn't go to me personally. It goes to the institution I work for and doesn't top up my personal salary. If I work in a university, I get paid irrespective of the funding so there's no financial benefit to me personally. This is part of the reason we invented tenure - it meant that academics could study whatever they wanted and would be paid irrespective of whether governments or outside parties disagreed with their conclusions and wanted them silenced.
There's also the small matter of the fact that scientists are taxpayers too. Why would scientists deliberately want to raise their taxes to combat global warming if, as some skeptics claim, that would be the outcome? Thousands of people lying to us so they can take home LESS pay? I find that hard to believe.
The simple fact is that most US citizens accept global warming is caused by humans. The figure is 52%. About 48% of US citizens agree that the planet is warming, but question how much is human-related. Only a tiny minority think global warming isn't happening, and a minority think humans have absolutely nothing to do with it.
Trump simply represents the view of that minority but he'll flip-flop on the issue like he has done on just about everything else so far. He's done a complete u-turn on Syria. He's doing a complete u-turn on North Korea. He's backed off from the 'wall' saying it's not just a physical wall. He's completely u-turned on the security services and praises them after berating them previously.
What he thinks on climate change is anyone's guess.