Scientists deliberately underestimating GW dangers for fear of being "ridiculed"

[wtmusic]

"Models guiding climate policy are 'dangerously optimistic'

Integrated assessment models (IAMs) used by researchers today – where climate change data is integrated with economic data – are dangerously flawed because they are based on naïve assumptions, according to Kevin Anderson from the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change at the University of Manchester, UK.

Anderson told environmentalresearchweb: 'The vast majority of IAMs assume low emission growth rates; early emission peaks; annual reduction rates limited to between 2 and 4%; untested geoengineering; and a high penetration of nuclear power alongside untested "carbon capture and storage" technologies. Because IAMs typically use similar and inappropriate sets of assumptions, they repeatedly come up with the same narrow and fundamentally flawed answers.'

<>

'The output from today's models is politically palatable,' said Anderson. 'The reality is far more depressing, but many scientists are too afraid to stand up and speak out for fear of being ridiculed. Our job is not to be liked but to give a raw and dispassionate assessment of the scale of the challenge faced by the global community.' In a recent paper in Philosophical Transactions, Anderson and his colleague Alice Bows of the Sustainable Consumption Institute at the University of Manchester warn that 'there is now little to no chance of maintaining the rise in global mean surface temperature at below 2°C, despite repeated high-level statements to the contrary'".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/feb/24/models-climate-policy-optimistic

[riverwalker]

1. We went to war for the same reasons

acting like children. I read Robert Bly's "The Sibling Society" years ago, I keep thinking about it now. We need to grow up.

[fittosurvive]

2. Perhaps they realize that with the coming food shortage, global warming may not be a bad thing.

[phantom power]

3. In what respect, Charlie?

[fittosurvive]

5. A longer and more widespread growing season.

[phantom power]

6. I think the future is going to... disappoint you.

[n2doc]

7. Can't grow w/o Water- See Russia.

Or if the crops are destroyed by too much Water.

[fittosurvive]

11. Good points--but assuming precipitation rates remain stable, a warmer climate equals

more food.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Nederland]

22. Read a book yourself

The most important things that plants need to grow are warm weather, lots of rain, and CO2. AGW is predicted to result in an increase in all three.

[wtmusic]

27. First you deny it's happening.

Then, when that tack becomes preposterous, you argue it's not so bad after all.

When someone adopts such an irrationally-defensive posture, there are two possibilites:

1) Like most of us, you find it unpleasant to admit you were wrong. Unlike most of us, you don't do it anyway.
2) Damn the consequences, you don't think global warming is important enough to worry our pretty l'il heads.

Which is it?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x276192#276217

Where will you run to next?

[Nederland]

28. I've NEVER denied that AGW is happening

All I've ever said is that the results will not be as catastrophic as the doomers claim.

[wtmusic]

29. Fair enough. Do you have any research that backs up your claim

AGW will be beneficial for the world's food supply?

You say it won't be as catastrophic as "the doomers" claim, but Kevin Andersen makes a convincing argument in OP that things are actually worse than current scientific consensus.

What about his appraisal is missing?

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Nederland]

57. Yes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming#Food_supply

The easiest thing is to just read the section on "Food Supply" in the above Wikipedia article on Effects of Global Warming. The section quotes several peer reviewed articles that are referenced by the IPCC AR4 report. As typical of Wikipedia articles on the subject, there are no contrarian points of view presented--everything comes from pro-global warming sources. Despite that fact that only pro-global warming sources are quoted, the article concludes that global production potential is predicted to increase up to around 3°C of warming. Only in the event that global temperatures increase by 4°C do global yields start to fall.

Now, this really doesn't settle the issue of whether global warming will be good or bad for global food supplies, it merely shifts the debate to the well worn subject of how much the world is actually going to warm up in the next 100 years. On that score, I've always said I thought the empirical evidence we've seen so far points to warming between 1°C and 2°C over the next 100 years. You ask what about Kevin Andersen's appraisal is missing. I would simply answer that his appraisal is missing references to any actual facts. It is a fact that climate models predicted warming at a rate of 0.2°C per decade at the very least. It is also a fact that what we have actually seen is always less than that, sometimes significantly less than that depending on what period you choose:



To summarize, we've got climate models that predicted sometimes twice as much warming as what we've actually seen, and Kevin Andersen saying that the climate models are underestimating warming. If Andersen wants anyone to believe him, he needs to reconcile that discrepancy. He doesn't.

[wtmusic]

59. If you average temperature change over 100 years of course -

you will see a much less drastic change. If you average it out over 10,000 years you will even see a declining "trend" in global temperatures. I'm sure you're aware that this disingenous application of statistics is meaningless.

The reason that Wikipedia article relies on "pro-global warming" sources is simply that no one has credible evidence to the contrary. You're certainly as free as anyone to step in, edit the article, and include your sources. Why don't you?

You say "I've always said I thought the empirical evidence we've seen so far points to warming between 1°C and 2°C over the next 100 years". Funny, but no one - repeat, no one - who does this science for a living agrees with you. You must have a hell of an argument up your sleeve, because whether "you've always said it" or not, you're on very thin ice. I'd like to see it, and compare it to this very credible conclusion from one of the most peer-reviewed and respected climatologists in the world:

"BAU (business-as-usual) scenarios result in global warming of the order of 3-6°C. It is this scenario for which we assert that multi-meter sea level rise on the century time scale are not only possible, but almost dead certain. Such a huge rapidly increasing climate forcing dwarfs anything in the peleoclimate record. Antarctic ice shelves would disappear and the lower reaches of the Antarctic ice sheets would experience summer melt comparable to that on Greenland today. "

http://www.columbia.edu/%7Ejeh1/mailings/2011/20110118_MilankovicPaper.pdf

[Nederland]

60. Response

If you average temperature change over 100 years of course you will see a much less drastic change. If you average it out over 10,000 years you will even see a declining "trend" in global temperatures. I'm sure you're aware that this disingenous application of statistics is meaningless.

Agreed, which is why I did not only post the 100 year trend, I posted trend lines for numerous lengths. I did this to prove a point: ALL of the trend lines are below what doomer computer models predict.

The reason that Wikipedia article relies on "pro-global warming" sources is simply that no one has credible evidence to the contrary. You're certainly as free as anyone to step in, edit the article, and include your sources. Why don't you?

I don't because your definition of "credible" means something that agrees with you. If you want to read some peer reviewed studies that disagree with what you believe, simple use Google Scholar to find numerous peer reviewed papers that contradict the mainstream view. Are they the majority? No, but scientific truth is not subject to a majority vote.

You say "I've always said I thought the empirical evidence we've seen so far points to warming between 1°C and 2°C over the next 100 years". Funny, but no one - repeat, no one - who does this science for a living agrees with you.

Really? John R. Christy doesn't do science for a living? You need to go tell the University of Virginia because apparently they are paying him for nothing. You should also tell the University of Alabama at Huntsville--you know, the people that produce UAH, one of the world's two satellite temperature records--that their employee Roy W. Spencer doesn't actually do science for a living. You should also tell MIT that Richard S. Lindzen doesn't do science for a living, and mention that he certainly did NOT publish a peer reviewed paper a year and a half ago in Geophysical Research Letters that says exactly what you are saying no one who "does science for a living" agrees with. Here it is: http://www.agu.org/journals/ABS/2009/2009GL039628.shtml.

Of course you will simply dismiss all the examples I gave above, as well as the dozens of others I could give you, by saying they are "not credible". They are not credible because they disagree with you... :eyes:

You must have a hell of an argument up your sleeve, because whether "you've always said it" or not, you're on very thin ice. I'd like to see it, and compare it to this very credible conclusion from one of the most peer-reviewed and respected climatologists in the world:

"BAU (business-as-usual) scenarios result in global warming of the order of 3-6°C. It is this scenario for which we assert that multi-meter sea level rise on the century time scale are not only possible, but almost dead certain. Such a huge rapidly increasing climate forcing dwarfs anything in the peleoclimate record. Antarctic ice shelves would disappear and the lower reaches of the Antarctic ice sheets would experience summer melt comparable to that on Greenland today."

There is no "argument up my sleeve"--it is in plain site and I've already posted it above. The argument is this: actual warming does not match model predictions, therefore the models are wrong. Get it? It's not hard to understand. Look at what the models predicted, then look at the temperature. Hansen can predict 3-6°C warming over a century all he wants, but if the temperature numbers don't start coming in a lot higher than they have he is wrong, plain and simple. I will admit that at this point the doomers do have a little wiggle room left because no one is claiming that the temperature trends shouldn't bounce around a little bit. However, while there is a bit of a kick at the end, the doomer models that predict 3-6°C warming over the next century show a pretty steady upward trend right from the very start. And that is the big problem for people like Hansen: Mother Nature has not cooperated. We haven't seen a pretty steady upward trend from the very start. We haven't seen anything close to predicted increases of 0.3-0.6°C per decade, and you simply can't get to 3-6°C warming over a century (the way the models predict) when temperatures are trending like they have the last 12 years.

Could the data turn around for the doomers? Certainly. If over the next 10 years we start seeing really, really strong increases in temperature it is certainly possible for temperatures to get back in line with model predictions. The problem is, every year that passes without us seeing those strong increases makes the possibility that the models are correct even more remote. In fact, unless we see some really strong warming in the next 5 years, even Hansen is going to have to admit he screwed up.

After all, the numbers that are proving him wrong are coming from his own office.

[wtmusic]

63. Throw the trend lines in a basket then cherry pick the ones you like?

Here's the scientific way to handle that Nederland: look at the megatrend, the "trend of the trend". Is the rate of global warming increase increasing? What about that rate, is that also increasing? Do you need me to demonstrate that climate change is conclusively accelerating?

scientific truth is not subject to a majority vote...

Dead wrong. The majority vote is called consensus, and it's what scientists rely on for life and death decisions that affect you every day.

I can't dismiss any of the "examples" you've provided above, because you haven't given me any. Show me where Christy concludes warming will stay under 2°C for the next century, and we'll have something to discuss.

Get it? It's not hard to understand. Look at what the models predicted, then look at the temperature. Hansen can predict 3-6°C warming over a century all he wants, but blah blah there is a big of a kick blah wiggle room blah we haven't seen anything blah bounce around a little bit...

This is the language of denial - no facts, no links, and the big tipoff - plenty of adjectives. You're not arguing with a moron, and if you want to continue this discussion you're going to have to provide some basis - even Lindzen wouldn't be bold enough to spout conclusions without support like you are.

[Nederland]

64. No links? No facts?

Did you even read my post? Did you see the link to the Lindzen paper that shows that climate sensitivity is actually around 0.5C, not 3.0-4.0C like Hansen claims? I'll keep this response short and end with the same link, that way you can't make up more lies about my responses. Here you go: http://www.agu.org/journals/ABS/2009/2009GL039628.shtml

[wtmusic]

65. I have to pay to find out you're wrong?

:rofl: No thanks. Have a nice day.

[Nederland]

67. Google is your friend

A little tip when trying to find a free version of a journal paper: cut and paste the title into Google and click search. If you had bothered to do that, you would have found a free link right below the paid link.

In case that's too complicated, I'll make it easy: http://www.seas.harvard.edu/climate/seminars/pdfs/lindzen.choi.grl.2009.pdf

Enjoy

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Nederland]

61. Here's a list of 800 peer reviewed papers for you. Have fun reading them.

http://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/weather/weather_news/800-reasons-to-be-a-man-made-global-warming-skeptic

Of course, I'm wasting my time here because all the doomers do when you present them with a list like this is say that the papers are "debunked" or "not credible" or "paid for by the oil industry". The truth is that you refuse to look at anything you deem not credible, and your definition of "credible" is something that supports your position. A nice, neat circular argument that ensures you will never have to open your mind to contrary points of view.

Sad, really...

[Javaman]

62. Did you read them? nt

[Nederland]

71. Not all of them of course (nt)

[Javaman]

72. How many is not all? 2-5? 5-50? nt

[Nederland]

74. A few key authors

I've read a couple by Lindzen, one from Spencer, and I think two of Christy's. Why?

[Javaman]

75. So you say there are 800 articles but you only read a few samplings?

is that what you are saying?

[wtmusic]

76. Reply with "Google is your friend" and you win.

SO much more expedient than providing links, quotes, etc.

Or provide a list of 800 articles (if they still don't see the light, they must have missed something).

Or provide a link that requires a paid subscription. Who in their right mind would bother?

Denial 101.

[Javaman]

78. Wow you pulled a lot from that.

All I'm saying is you are basing your opinion on a few selected quotes and articles that no where near the 800 peer reviewed sources as you stated.

If you had read all 800 I would have had respect for your opinion.

But alas, you did not, I, therefore, look at your reply as purely opinion.

I don't make any claim to have read huge amounts of data regarding the topic, I choose to read what I believe come from informed people on specific topics to form my own opinion.

While you push the concept that there 800 peer reviewed papers on said topic, and since you didn't read all or even a quarter, the best you can say is, "in my opinion".

That's all I'm saying.

Unless of course you are an authority in the field, that would be different. but then since most if not all postings on DU are anonymous, anyone can claim anything. It falls back to opinion.

Cheers.

[wtmusic]

80. .

:sarcasm: :thumbsup:

[Nederland]

81. Fair enough

On DU, both sides of this argument consist of a bunch of internet experts spouting off uninformed opinions.

I guess I can't disagree with that.

[Javaman]

82. That's all I'm saying. :)

Cheers. :)

[Nederland]

79. Yup

I've read only a handful of global warming skeptic papers out of the hundreds that exist.

I'd bet that most global warming doomers around here (like yourself) have read only a handful of pro-AGW papers out of the thousands that exist.

So what is your point?

[Javaman]

83. I'm assuming you wrote this prior to your other reply...

So I will let your insult pass.

Cheers to you.

[Nederland]

85. I'm sorry

Honestly, I didn't mean to insult you and don't understand how I could have. All I said was that "I'd bet that most global warming doomers around here (like yourself) have read only a handful of pro-AGW papers out of the thousands that exist". If that is not true and you actually have, I apologize.

[Javaman]

86. Just walk away. nt

[Javaman]

87. Just walk away. nt

[The Croquist]

69. I knew you were a troll Nederland. I just knew it!!!

You've been real sneaky waiting 10 years and posting over 9,000 times to build your credentials but now you've been outed!

[_ed_]

31. This is the stupidest thing I've read in a long time

You must either be an internet troll or someone paid by the oil and gas lobby. If you're stupid enough to believe what you wrote, you not only don't understand climate science, but you don't even understand science in general.

[Nederland]

55. That's probably because you don't know how to read

You should try it sometime, like try reading IPCC AR4. Here's link:

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml

[fittosurvive]

37. Easy Dud--there's no need to let your emotions influence your response to such a degree.

[hatrack]

47. That's one big-ass assumption

nt

[XemaSab]

56. .

[cprise]

73. Precipitation is one of the most dramatic changes in global warming

To echo another poster, you don't know squat about climate.

[kestrel91316]

8. Er, you don't do much in the way of farming or even gardening, do you?

Because I did, here in Los Angeles, for 15 years or so. It has become virtually impossible to grow much in the way of fruits and vegetables - too cold and rainy in the winter (except when we get ZERO rain), then abrupt switch to ghastly, searing heat (near 120F by late June some years) come late spring, often through Thanksgiving, then right back to cold and rainy.

Climate destabilization and worse extremes of weather do NOT help crops. Just look at all the major grain crop failures in recent years due to drought AND flood AND excess heat AND unusual cold AND extremes at the wrong times in general.

Nice try. But it's NOT going to be pretty.

[fittosurvive]

15. While I'm no Archer-Daniels-Midland, my gardens have always done quite well.

In fact, during the growing season, I become a temporary vegan.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

25. and when they take away your Miracle Grow, then where will you be?

Speaking as a gardener myself, how can you have NOT noticed the changes going on right in front of your eyes? :shrug:

[fittosurvive]

38. I'll be uilding a bigger compost box.

You will have to forgive me for not noticing. But 1/2 a degree or so every century is difficult to detect.

[wtmusic]

44. That would be 2ºC if you had bothered to read the article

15 meters of sea rise is a little easier to detect, especially if it puts everything you own underwater. Or makes another species go extinct every 2 minutes and 30 seconds.

But if it doesn't affect your little garden, why should it bother the billion or so people it will displace? :eyes:

[fittosurvive]

48. That is not true.

According to the historical temperature record of the last century, the Earth's near-surface air temperature has risen around 0.74 ± 0.18 °Celsius (1.3 ± 0.32 °Fahrenheit).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change

[wtmusic]

51. And that's the problem. You're using past data to predict the future

when, with the possible exception of two or three other occasions, climate change is happening more rapidly than it ever has in the history of the planet.

You need to educate yourself. This is not hysteria, this is not alarmism - the planet is in deep doo-doo. Here is a primer:

1) Read my sig line, courtesy of Lou Grinzo.
2) Read this paper by one of the most respected climatologists in the world. If you want more background, read his book. There haven't been any significant scientific challenges to his work.
3) Then read about the Clathrate Gun Hypothesis, a hypothesis which actually is controversial, but very possible - and could make life on Earth virtually impossible in a century or two.

I really can't debate until you have something more to offer than your intuition.

[tavalon]

45. Since you're kind of new here, you may not be aware of some of the community norms

One of them is to actually read the articles you comment on. Sadly, even some old timers fail on this one, but it's really important, not only so we can comment intelligently but so that we continue to educate ourselves about the issues around us.

You may wonder why I would even bother concerning myself with the current issues when I believe that man is destined to become extinct within the next 100 years or so. It's because I look at humanity in a microcosm as well as a macrocosm. While it's pretty clear that the game ends with us shuffling off this beautiful world, it's not likely to happen tomorrow so I involve myself in the current politics and ecoconservation not because it will help in the macrocosm, but because I feel it's the right thing to do.

My worldview is that, for as long as I can, I will be my brother's keeper. I learned that from Jesus and it resonates well with me. I'm not Christian but that doesn't mean I'm going to disregard some of his better teachings. The person, as he was portrayed in the New Testament, was a really wise person. I'm not particularly motivated by self preservation but rather caring for and about all of us. All of us, to me, includes Earth and boy, we have treated her badly.

[wtmusic]

9. Food crisis is global warming's biggest threat, say UW, Stanford scientists

"When searing temperatures blasted Western Europe in 2003, more than 50,000 people died and harvests of wheat, animal fodder and fruit fell by up to a third.

Imagine that heat being the norm over much of the world, and you'll have an idea what the future is likely to hold for agriculture — and humanity, says a new report from scientists at the University of Washington and Stanford University.

<>

By the end of this century, the odds are higher than 90 percent that average temperatures during the growing season will be higher than ever before in recorded history across a big swath of the planet, says the analysis published today in the journal Science. The hardest-hit areas will be the tropics and subtropics, which encompass about half the world's population and include Africa, the southern United States, and much of India, China and South America."

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008604722_webwarming09m.html

[fittosurvive]

12. On the other hand...

The U.S. Department of Agriculture has forecast that agricultural exports are expected to reach a record $126.5 billion in fiscal 2011, up $13.5 billion from forecasts made last summer and an increase of $17.8 billion over 2010's tallies.

[wtmusic]

14. Source please.

Thanks.

[fittosurvive]

16. LA Times...

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/feb/10/business/la-fi-farm-show-20110210

[wtmusic]

19. And it snowed yesterday, so global warming must be a hoax.

"Why Global Warming Portends a Food Crisis

It can be difficult in the middle of winter — especially if you live in the frigid Northeastern U.S., as I do — to remain convinced that global warming will be such a bad thing. Beyond the fact that people prefer warmth to cold, there's a reason the world's population is clustered in the Tropics and subtropics: warmer climates usually mean longer and richer growing seasons. So it's easy to imagine that on a warmer globe, the damage inflicted by more frequent and severe heat waves would be balanced by the agricultural benefits of warmer temperatures.

A comforting thought, except for one thing: it's not true. A study published in the Jan. 9 issue of Science shows that far from compensating for the damages associated with climate change (heavier and more frequent storms, increasing desertification, sea-level rise), hotter temperatures will seriously diminish the world's ability to feed itself. David Battisti, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Washington, and Rosamond Naylor, director of the Program for Food Security and the Environment at Stanford University, analyzed data from 23 climate models and found a more than 90% chance that by the end of the century, average growing-season temperatures would be hotter than the most extreme levels recorded in the past."
stories of 2008.)"

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1870766,00.html#ixzz1F5HaQ0LY

Got plenty more of these to share, if you need them.

[_ed_]

33. This is irrelevant

Can you cite a peer-reviewed journal of climatology that supports your point of view? Waiting for that specific citation...

[fittosurvive]

39. It may be irrelevant to you Ed, but it is not irrelevant to producers and consumers of food.

Furthermore, I don't need a peer reviewed study that some climatologist picked my pocket to perform to teach me how to read an agriculture production chart.

[wtmusic]

43. That POV is a case study in the effectiveness of well-targeted propaganda

Prey on paranoia. Never fails.

[fittosurvive]

49. Actually, there is quite a bit of propaganda coming from both sides of this debate.

Sure, the petroleum industry is trying to influence the debate. If someone were trying to put you out of business, you would do the same thing.

But there is also enormous pressure coming from the lobbyists and investors in green industries. Furthermore, the climate study industry is continually seeking grant money to read thermometers that they have placed in areas that will "prove" their hypotheses.

[wtmusic]

52. The "climate study industry" is a complete fabrication

also generated by the American Petroleum Institute, among others (my sister works for the Dept. of the Interior in Alaska, and not only is the money available for research a pittance - the government doesn't care what findings come out of it).

What kind of return could "green indstries" expect from the creation of an elaborate hoax? We're talking about one thousandth, one ten-thousandth of the hundreds of billions of dollars in profit earned by Big Oil on sales in the US alone, not to mention thousands of scientists with their rep on the line.

Follow the money.

[_ed_]

53. 100% Wrong

You don't even understand how science works. I'm still waiting for a peer-reviewed study in climatology that supports your nonsense. I can cite the IPCC. How about you?

I'd suggest you try this armchair-scientist strategy next time you go to the doctor. Those peer-reviewed medical journals are junk -- I'm sure you can find better ways to treat people in your garden.

[Nederland]

58. "I can cite the IPCC" Really? Please do...

I'd love for you to quote the IPCC section on food production. In particular, I'd like you to cite what the IPCC AR4 says will happen to the food supply if temperature increases stay below 3 degrees...

No hurry, I'll wait.

[Nederland]

70. *crickets*

As expected...

Doomers love to talk, but when it comes to delivering the goods they fail every time because the Science is not on their side.

[Javaman]

66. If climate scientists are in it for the money, they're doing it wrong

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/02/if-climate-scientists-push-the-consensus-its-not-for-the-money.ars

One of the more unfortunate memes that makes an appearance whenever climate science is discussed is the accusation that, by hyping their results, climate scientists are ensuring themselves steady paychecks, and may even be enriching themselves. A Google search for "global warming gravy train" pulls out over 50,000 results (six of them from our forums).

It's tempting to respond with indignation; after all, researchers generally are doing something they love without a focus on compensation. But, more significantly, the accusation simply makes no sense on any level.

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.

-snip-

'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.

-more at link-

[wtmusic]

77. Bookmarked

Another meme bites the dust.

[Nederland]

84. Michael Mann has received $2.4 million in grant money

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704541004575010931344004278.html

A non-profit (TERI) controlled by Rajendra Pachauri has recieved over $17 million in private sector payments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajendra_K._Pachauri


Those facts aside, I largely agree with you, climate scientists are probably not in it for the money. They may be in it for the power and fame though. I think you need to recognize that simply because their salaries are not high, figures like these two do control a great deal of money and as a result you can't so easily discount the financial aspect of the subject. I believe for a scientist like Mann, salary is not a big motivator, but grant money is. Yes, grant money is not "yours" like salary money is in that you can't spend it however you'd like to. However, grant money does convey a great deal of power. When a guy like Michael Mann gets a multi-million dollar grant that gives him a huge amount of power and influence because by and large he gets to decide how that money gets doled out. He can hire research assistants and sponsor graduate students and offer post-doc positions to people that share his opinions on climate change. He can push research in certain direction, and he can gain a great deal of fame. He gets invited to dinners with important people. He gets flown around the world to sit in on conferences. He gets interviewed by national media and gets to be on TV. Lots of cool stuff happens when you are seen as a major player in your field.

Given all this, I find is hard to believe that these people are purely motivated by a desire to sit in their labs and do science. The lure of fame and influence has to have some effect on them--they are only human.

On Edit: The same criticism applies to climate change skeptics as well. They get lots of fame and influence too--it's just given to them by a different group of people.

[Nederland]

23. High temperatures are NOT what kills crops

What kills crops is lack of precipitation. So long as there is enough water, higher temperatures will actually increase yields.

Now tell me, what does the IPCC predict regarding precipitation rates over the next 100 years?

[pscot]

26. If there's more rain in the north Pacific region

and hot dry weather from Moscow to Peiping, how does that feed the world. And there's this:

How has climate change affected India's staple crops, such as rice and wheat?

The impact is quite profound and measurable. For instance , a small increase in temperature reduces the maturity period of wheat and affects the crop yield drastically . According to a report by the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization, a one degree Celsius rise in mean temperature translates into wheat yield losses of around 6 million tonnes per year in India.

Read more: ‘Sly climate makes farming India’s riskiest profession' - The Times of India http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/sunday-toi/special-report/Sly-climate-makes-farming-Indias-riskiest-profession/articleshow/7388516.cms#ixzz1F5miMwH4

[OnlinePoker]

34. Some years will be dry and some won't

The fact is, through all the years of warming from the 70's onwards, global food production per hectare has shown a steady increase. I'll give you the links and you can look up the data yourself, but:

Rice:

1973/74 - 2.45 Metric Tons/Hectare, 136.3 Million Hectares farmed, 333.8 MMT total production
2010/11 - 4.3 Metric Tons/Hectare, 158 Million Hectares farmed, 677 MMT total production

Wheat:

1973/74 - 1.68 Metric Tons/Hectare, 215.3 Million Hectares farmed, 361.3 MMT total production
2010/11 - 2.9 Metric Tons/Hectare, 222 Million Hectares farmed, 645 MMT total production

2002 Link -shows data to 1973 on pg 12 & 13 http://www.fas.usda.gov/grain/circular/2002/01-02/hist_tbl.pdf
2011 Link - shows data on pg 49-51 http://www.fas.usda.gov/grain/circular/2011/01-11/grainfull01-11.pdf

As for India, their wheat production has stayed steady at about 2.8 MT per hectare through the 2000's. It doesn't give a similar breakdown per acre for rice, but India's total production stayed steady at about 93-95 MMT per year through the 2000's.

[tavalon]

10. You don't actually know what the first law is

and you aren't nearly as prepared as you would like us to believe with your username. None of us are. We are on the edge of an epoch, an ending for us and for so many other species. We won't be here to see what comes next. I hope whoever makes it to the top of the evolutionary ladder next time has more common sense.

[fittosurvive]

13. Actually, I don't believe in the Mayan calendar theory.

[tavalon]

17. Yeah, me neither,

but your belief that you, yourself will survive in the long term just isn't reality. Yeah, maybe for the next 20 years, but in epochal time, you, me and all the other bipids are going to die off.

[fittosurvive]

40. Perhaps you are right, but I really think you are being overly dramatic.

Who knows, it could be that another event like the eruption of Mount Tambora is just around the corner. If so, this debate will have been a waste of time.

[tavalon]

46. Or Yellowstone

True enough, but then my other option is to clean the kitchen. This is a more interesting by far. The kitchen will still be there in a while. As I said in one of my other posts, while we are entering an epoch that ends with our extinction, with rare exceptions epochs are measured in geologic time, which to puny humans is quite slow. Certain things can and are starting in our lifetimes, but it's more likely that your grandkids or great-grandkids are going to face the actual end game.

[fittosurvive]

50. One of the problems of this debate relates to the fact that it has become very emotional,

as evidenced by some of the comments in this thread. I will be the first to admit that I don't have the answers; however, one thing is for certain: the issue of GW is neither as bleak nor rosy as the two sides would have us believe.

It also clear that the financial stakes are high for both sides, even though one side emphatically denies this fact.

Thus, I oppose the implementation of drastic and far-reaching actions to combat something that no one knows for certain what the results of this warming trend will be. I don't want anymore things like funky colored, buzzing and flickering light bulbs forced on me.

[wtmusic]

54. I'll agree with you there. With a caveat.

Just because people are emotional doesn't mean there's not a big, big problem (let me ask you this: if there really was a huge problem, why wouldn't people be emotional?)

I've already responded to the financial stakes argument in another post, but suffice to say the amount of money would be a tiny, tiny, infinitesimal fraction of what the fossil industry has to lose.

"I don't want anymore things like funky colored, buzzing and flickering light bulbs forced on me."

It certainly would be arrogant for me to think I could set your priorities for you. All I can do is present what I know to be fact, and try to ensure you're making an intelligent decision. Because your point of view ultimately affects me, and everyone on this thread - the world is shrinking fast. It would be wonderful if we could continue the status quo without any ramifications but it's now very clear that scenario is a fantasy. We've come to a crossroads where we have to decide what is important and act on it - intelligently.

[Angry Dragon]

18. +1000

[wtmusic]

4. First anger, then denial, then acceptance.

Just like death.

[_ed_]

21. From the Koch Brothers' Bank Account

to your mouth. Congratulations!

[fittosurvive]

41. such fascination with the koch bros...

[thaddeus_flowe]

24. This is a great thread.

K/R

[Chris_Texas]

35. DOOM!!!! DOOOOM!!!!!

Yeah, so I am not politically correct. Whatever. I have looked at global warning folks own websites where they are making their best case, the data often nicely illustrated with fun graphs that really enhance the alarming changes they are using to justify both their predictions and their FUNDING.

I am unimpressed. Simply, and sorry, but their case is really rather weak.

And before you whip out the "B-But it's science Chris! SCIENCE!" I would like to direct your attention to the Gulf, where literally hundreds of scientists are now paid to assure us that eating oil-soaked seafood is just fine, and swimming in toxic chemi-hell just saves you money on sunblock. Some of the biggest corporations in the world are invested in global warming, and they pay their scientists (and magazine editors) well for the results they want.

[pscot]

36. That would be the oil companies, right?

They're the ones with all the money. They are the ones buying the results they want. What corporate entity is providing the cash to finance the science that proves climate change? It's not the energy companies. It's not agribusiness. Who's behind it? This bogus claim is repeated ad nauseum. Show us the money.

[wtmusic]

42. And some of the biggest oil corporations are headquartered in Texas

I'm sure that has no reflection on your opinion, or why you've bizarrely concluded all scientists are on the take (it does make me curious how you feel about the "round earth" controversy).

Always sorry to see someone has bought into denialism, wherever they are. :(

[joshcryer]

68. Only another nail in the coffin of the "renewables are working" crowd.