Who stands to make money off climate change?

It happened over thousands of years, not tens.

Even those most stalwart opponents now realize how silly they look for refuting that warming is occurring, and they are turning to diversionary tactics such as the sunspot theory and the "it was hotter before so its no big deal" argument.

Take a few minutes to do some research on either or both of these. You'll find plenty of one off sites, but note the absences of any credible references on those. Then go to the places with actual legitimate information and see what they have to say.

luv2run wrote:

Who stands to make money off climate change?

Manufacturers of mosquito repellent.

Canadians

Oh, the possibilities are endless for the shrewd entrepreneur.

You can set up some web site that points to reams of evidence showing temperatures will skyrocket, then hype up the sale of things like shelters, portable generators, water purifiers, herbal remedies against insect-borne viruses, blah, blah, blah.

But wait! There's more! A hallmark of any conniving racketeer's bag of tricks ... oops, I mean any prudent businessman's array of services ... is that he always hedges his bets. So set up another web site with different reams of evidence (not too hard to find this "evidence," science being the battleground it is) showing temperatures are bound to plummet to Ice Age levels any day now, a la "Three Days After Yesterday" (or whatever that movie was called). Then you can trump up the urgency for the kind of "professional" cold-weather gear only your site offers, und so weiter.

In either scenario, you have to dupe the dumbass mark into impetuously plumping for ... sheesh, I mean you should encourage the thoughtful customer to wisely invest in ... storable food (along with guns, ammo and assorted booby traps, of course). A google search of "climate change" + "storable food" had this site at the top of the list:

http://survivalacres.com/

See? These survivalist web sites already exist. Don't get left behind. Set up yours today. Take advantage of panicky lemmings ... damn, did it again, I mean provide a valuable service to concerned citizens ... and help them prepare for every scenario in an uncertain future.

Tomorrow: How to assist your fellow Earthlings in thwarting the imminent grey alien invasion. "Art Bell-approved" tin foil hats are a must, my friends.

Pompous Prick wrote:

huh... wrote:

If you have young kids I hope they enjoy extraordinarily expensive food because much of the south US will become a permanent dust bowl by 2100 taking away much of our current farm land. Half of all species gone by 2100 as well and the ocean will be a hot acidic dead zone. It'll be a beautiful destruction. We shouldn't concern ourselves with saving the earth. It doesn't need saving. This is about saving a semblance of humanity for the not too distant future.

According to who? Al Gore? There hasn't been a single scientific report predicting a change that drastic. But there have been plenty of alarmist fantasy scenarios like this.

According to the International Energy Agency - see or download executive summary here:

The Intergovernmental panel on climate change (IPCC), which releases scientific reports on the state of the world's climate based on vast amounts of peer-reviewed scientific research and gives predictions for the near and far future has actually been seen as too modest in their predictions of ~8 F warming by 2100. 8F warming is predicted to make a permanent dustbowl of the south US, increasingly acidic oceans and ocean level rises of a meter or more.

Everyone wants to jump on Al Gore's back because he's not a likable guy and we feel like he's shaming or scaring us with what he's saying. Say what you will about him, but the data he's presenting doesn't just come out of thin air. This is peer-reviewed stuff from scientists like myself who build knowledge based on experimental evidence. Certainly the modeling into the future is not absolute fact, but if you can show me one credible climate scientist who has a high-level model that shows the global climate to be leveling off or cooling into the next 100-200 on our current emissions path - I'd like to see it. These models are incredibly complex and with more and more data collected over the years from more and more sources, the models are becoming more accurate.

gregmacd wrote:

Canadians

You are right. Warmer weather in Canada will make for a longer growing season and they will also have increasing access to natural gas and oil locked up in the tundra. Also, it will be a haven for many climate change refugees from low lying coastal lands. Although I'm not sure that's an "advantage" for Canada.

forbidenLove wrote:

huh... wrote:

Yup, the last time the earth warmed substantially (>15 F) there was a giant sea running through the middle of much of the midwest.

It happened w/o any humans present.

What makes you convinced that our presence will bring it back?

Maybe I should quit lighting candles for my departed mom. Bad CO2 karma.

This is bad logic. If we weren't there before, then it get's hot and climate changes. If we are here now, then it get's hot and nothing happens. Spectacular.

You're right. Why worry? There isn't a single shred of evidence that supports the idea that the climate is changing and that changing will have any impact on humans. Let's just wait this one out and see what happens while the rest of the world passes us by in renewable energy technology and science and makes a ton of money off of it. The US developed the initial science and technology on solar energy and now Germany and other European countries have more solar energy in their grid than the US does. We dropped the ball there. When you have the keys to a powerful technology - make use of it, make money off of it and as an added bonus - help humanity steer itself away from a catastrophe by 2100.

Oh, the possibilities are endless for the shrewd entrepreneur.

...

A google search of "climate change" + "storable food" had this site at the top of the list:

http://survivalacres.com/

(a) Again, the "making money off it is sinister". Well, one sees the world through the lens of one's own experience. I guess you guys claiming the potential profitability is proof it's a hoax, live in a world of tailoring the facts to fit your purposes, of marketing over substance, of political expediency trumping truth and integrity.

When you guys need "the left" to remind you that making a buck ain't a crime in this country, that ought to be a wake up call that your head's up your ass. That's the entrepreneurial model, isn't it - see a need, be there with a product or service, make a buck? So if you were a smart person who understood the science and saw a high probability of where this was going, you'd have to be either stoopid or devoid of entrepreneurial instincts not to invest in the industry, no? Same as you'd be smart to invest in tech a quarter century ago if you saw the writing on the wall. Sheesh, this is elementary school stuff.

(b) The presence of extremist wackos on whatever side of an issue is hardly evidence against the vast majority of reasonable people. Otherwise the rabid libertarians pretty well prove the total bankruptcy of American conservatism, and the bristliest commies in academia invalidate everything left of center, and we're left with everyone's wrong about everything.

To take this a step further... Even if you are totally unconvinced of any human induced climate change you still need to think about national security, political power and energy security. As I stated, whichever country develops the science and technology for renewable energy will be in a very good political and financial position in the near and far out future. Gas and oil are not infinite resources and pollution affects the health of people. I don't know anyone who can argue with that.

This is a completely capitalistic, selfish, humanistic point of view. Screw the planet - let's make the US rich, powerful and healthy. You can look at it this way if you wish and you'd be doing yourself a favor. I have no qualms with that. As the above poster stated. If you need a "lefty academic" like myself to tell you where to make money - you're not paying attention to anything.

Racehorse wrote:

Pompous Prick wrote:

Let's assume the "consensus" is correct - humans are the driving force behind climate change. Let's also assume that we can completely stop emitting CO2. Will the climate stop changing? Will it get warmer or colder? How much of the planet will be covered by ice? Will sea level rise or fall? Will the glaciers that are receding start growing while the glaciers that are growing start receding? Will the Northwest Passage be frozen shut, or will it be open like it was when Roald Amundsen sailed through in 1905? What's the correct temperature of the earth anyway?

Great questions! Think you will get any intelligent answers?

These are good questions and I will try and answer some of them. I think it's important to note, however that even this skeptic is assuming that the scientific consensus is correct here.

Will the climate stop changing?

There is a lag time before increases in CO2 in the atmosphere are seen in increasing temperature. This is due to the fact that a lot of thermal energy is being stored in the oceans and sinking to the bottom where it will not resurface for thousands of years. There is also a residency time that CO2 stays in the atmosphere which means that even if we stop contributing fossil fuels, it will take hundreds if not thousands of years for temperatures to go back to what they would have been without anthropogenic forcing.

Will it get warmer or colder?

Because of the above, even if we go cold-turkey on CO2 emissions, the Earth will continue to warm for probably several hundred years at which point it will begin to cool. In a couple of thousand years, we can probably expect to leave our nice cozy inter-glacial period and go back into another ice age, assuming humans don't interfere with climate to prevent that. I'm sure we will have the means by then.

Will sea level rise or fall?

Rise. Greenland has melted during past interglacial periods which had similar temperatures to what we are seeing today. The Greenland ice sheet has the potential to raise sea level by around 7m. The West Antarctic ice sheet is also susceptible to melting if air and ocean temperatures rise much more and could add several more meters. Most of the ice in the Antarctic is tied up in the East Antarctic sheet and it is unlikely that anthropogenic warming will be sufficient to melt it, but if it were to melt, the results would be catastrophic.

Will the glaciers that are receding start growing while the glaciers that are growing start receding?

Most glaciers will obviously be receding. However, in very cold climates, where precipitation is low, a warmer climate could mean greater precipitation at high elevations and latitudes so some glaciers will likely experience growth.

Will the Northwest Passage be frozen shut, or will it be open like it was when Roald Amundsen sailed through in 1905?

The Northwest Passage is expected to be permanently open during Summer months this century. Companies are already looking into the viability of using it for shipping routes. There was a good program on "Doc Zone" about it the other day.

What's the correct temperature of the earth anyway?

Good question. Scientists seem to be in agreement that we want to keep temperatures below the threshold that would result in the Greenland ice sheet melting away. This would result in flooding of many coastal areas, the result of which would be more expensive and disruptive than any policies put in place to limit greenhouse gas emissions. Most scientists believe that this threshold lies somewhere around 450-500 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere. We are currently at 380-something and will reach the threshold this century if significant efforts to curb emissions are not put in place. Global warming is not going to be an environmental cataclysm of unparalleled dimensions, but a 7m+ rise in sea level and the localized effects on agriculture will be more inconvenient and expensive in the long run than doing something now to try and curb it.

There is no debate among CLIMATOLOGISTS that increasing CO2 emissions leads to an increase in climate. The arguments against this are political spin and if you don't believe this, read

and educate yourself. This topic as been argued before many times.

To the person who quoted Michael Chricton and his book "State of Fear", read

as it discusses and refutes the points he tries to make in the book. Perhaps you should consider looking at some peer reviewed scientific articles to make your point, not a fictional book.

oliver klozoff wrote:

chuckie darwin wrote:

thousands of smart, educated, experienced professionals who have devoted years of their careers to studying the subject.

...and profiting hugely from proving a certain outcome.

Would not say hugely, but they are all making a cushy living off of grants to study the trumped-up crisis.

Billions were made from the millennium threat.

Cashing-in on the swine flu 'crisis' is the latest.

skepticology wrote:

oliver klozoff wrote:

...and profiting hugely from proving a certain outcome.

Would not say hugely, but they are all making a cushy living off of grants to study the trumped-up crisis.

Billions were made from the millennium threat.

Cashing-in on the swine flu 'crisis' is the latest.

Who has the ability to fund scientists' research more; private energy companies or universities? Yet, interestingly, 99.9% of climate scientists are still sticking to their ethics and saying what they truly believe. The contrarians who do contest the consensus like Pat Michaels and Richard Lindzen (who also crusaded on behalf of cigarettes) receive hundreds of thousands of dollars a year from industry to tell their version of the "truth". So if financial gain is the only reason why climate scientists are backing global warming, as you say, why aren't there a lot more contrarians (with actual degrees in climate science) speaking out on behalf of industry? A good question...

chuckie darwin wrote:

I guess you guys claiming ...

When you guys ...

Well, I'm sure you made some very pertinent points in there somewhere and someday I might even read one or two of them. But why lump me in with this nefarious cabal known as "you guys"? I don't have a filly in this "climate change" derby and was making fun of the wacko extremists on both sides of this Y2K-comparable alarm bell as well as the opportunistic bastards who would do nothing but capitalize on it (they exist on both sides, too, ya know).

This thing's been blown to gigantic proportions (altogether now ... THAT'S! WHAT! SHE! SAID!). But seriously folks, at this point, it just plain hurts (ba-doom-tssss!) and it's desperately in need of some down time (roll eyes, groan).

skepticology wrote:

oliver klozoff wrote:

...and profiting hugely from proving a certain outcome.

Would not say hugely, but they are all making a cushy living off of grants to study the trumped-up crisis.

Billions were made from the millennium threat.

Cashing-in on the swine flu 'crisis' is the latest.

This makes me laugh. Do you think researchers at major universities just get money thrown at them? No, they write long grant proposals in an incredibly competitive environment of other scientists going after that same small pot of money the NSF, NIH, DOE hands out. My research advisor gets rejected more often than he gets approved on the proposals he submits. Besides teaching, grant writing eats up the majority of his time. As an added bonus - a vast majority of that money goes to paying me, the graduate students meager salary, and to buy equipment and supplies to do our research. I know for a fact that my boss is not making a "cushy living" off what he gets on grants even though he is near the top of his respective field - I've seen his budget sheets. We're skimming by and working very long hours to do the science we do. I'm not complaining though. I love what I do and wouldn't stoop to being a contrarian just for money. I do science because it's science not for political reasons or just to be "the other side of the story."

Cushy living... hahah, I love it. I've got to tell my boss that one.

Exactly. It is so hard to get money to further your career that you are going to be flexible when it comes to the research direction that you choose to pursue.

compromise wrote:

Exactly. It is so hard to get money to further your career that you are going to be flexible when it comes to the research direction that you choose to pursue.

Research direction, yes, I agree. I can choose to do hydrogen fuel cell research, study new materials for photovoltaic solar cells or lithium ion batteries. Certain areas may be more competitive than others, but once I start doing research - I don't get to pick the result I get. I work with an idea and try my hardest to disprove it. If it stands up to a lot of questioning and it's consistent and is experimentally rigorous, then it probably deserves to get published. If it's rubbish or I even have one experiment that disproves what I thought - then it's back to the drawing board. That's called scientific integrity. I wouldn't be a scientist if it was all about trying to pull the wool over people's eyes. That's why it's science and not magic.

I mean you will have strong incentives to align your research with the biases of your funding agencies.

compromise wrote:

I mean you will have strong incentives to align your research with the biases of your funding agencies.

I can only speak to my own experiences and what I hear from others in our department. I've never once been told by my boss what specific outcome he wants or that we're going to chase a specific result to get money. The initial ideas come from us, not the funding agencies. The funding agencies only break down the monies into sub-areas of a given field - not specific biases or projected outcomes. As an example... a funding agency wouldn't put out a proposal call saying, "we're looking to fund research that gives further creedence to this global climate change idea." Instead it would probably fall under the sub-area of atmospheric chemistry and would be a call for proposals for more accurate detection of aeresol particles or ozone concentrations or to fund furthering the understanding of the air/ocean interface and the chemistry at that surface. Or it would just be to give money to continue the monitoring of global CO2 and methane concentrations. I don't know how you can bias an absolute measurement of a gas concentration.

I would hope that the NSF, DOE, NIH, etc would be choosing to award grant proposals based on how sound the proposal is, not on the specific result it may or may not get.

That is what I am talking about. They are promoting research with the underlying assumption that climate change is a serious problem.