Don:

As a former, hard-nosed investigative reporter, I bet you have wondered, as I have, why we never see any media reports looking into the reason there is no scientific research focusing on the benefits of global warming?

A longer growing season and less energy needed to heat homes are two that come immediately to mind, not to mention a longer golf season in Minnesota.

Could it be there is no funding available for that type of research?

I can recall a time when a hard-hitting, I-team at a local television station would have provided us the answer.

I will keep hope alive that some day, a fearless, local reporter will appear to take a good, hard look at the funding of global warming research. As a former hard-nosed,fearless, investigative reporter yourself, I am sure you share that hope as well.

The non-Murdoch media bear some responsibility here, too, with their long-standing tradition of granting equal time to idiots.

Sure, some questions really are a matter of opinion, based on different values and interests, such as the question of where to put the next light rail line.

But in other matters, such as the causes of the economic meltdown or the facts about global warming, the mainstream media have succumbed to political pressure to provide "balance," i.e. allowing somebody from a right-wing think tank to come in and spout an over-simplified, emotionally appealing, but mostly false position.

A person who watches a lot of TV, even someone who never goes near Fox News, and is otherwise not intellectually curious, can easily develop the attitude that everything is just a matter of opinion.

It doesn't help that the AM radio jocks crack lame jokes about global warming every time it snows, as judged by the online comments to weather-related articles in local newspapers. If snow or cold temperatures are forecast, a dozen or so readers pile into the online comments with snide remarks such as "Where's your global warming now?"

Why are Americans so vulnerable to these kinds of manipulations? Aside from our anti-intellectual culture, there's our dependence on cars. Automobiles are responsible for about 1/3 of the CO2 emissions in this country, but so many Americans live in areas that were purposely built far away from stores and services and are accessible only by car. Furthermore, eighty years of advertising have created the notion that one's car is an extension of one's personality.

If we were really serious about mitigating global warming (and not incidentally, reducing our dependence on foreign oil), we would not have spent trillions on Middle Eastern wars. Instead, we would have used that money to build mass transit systems that made it possible for people to live without cars, retrofitted existing suburbs to facilitate non-automotive transportation, and brought our intercity rail system into the 21st century in order to reduce short-hop plane travel. (Note: This does not mean banning cars, no matter what the right-wing scaremongers say. It means providing people with a real choice of transportation.)

In addition to the benefits of cleaner air, more cohesive communities, and fewer foreign wars, these infrastructure programs would have provided living wage jobs that didn't require being shot at, and at the end, we would have something that Americans could use for generations to come.

To Jeff Michaels: As far as the supposed "benefits" of global warming are concerned, it's not just about Minnesota. Large sections of the earth may become uninhabitable due to flooding or unbearably hot temperatures. Even here, our summers are already hot enough, thank you.

@#2
There HAS been research in that area, and the conclusion is that the narrow benefits of warming are far outweighed by the harm of it.

First, there were extensive studies of the benefits of increased CO2 on plants and plant production. It turns out that crop plants do grow better on an increased amount of CO2, BUT they're generally less nutritious if they get more than enough CO2. That is, a little bit goes a long way for warming, but very little for plant quality.
Example references:
http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/co2plant.htm
http://www.news.ucdavis.edu/search/news_detail.lasso?id=9479

Second, while a warmer growing season might be beneficial for some crops (e.g., corn), other crops, such as wildrice would fail. Some crops actually require a cooler growing season, or at least cooler temperatures at the beginning of the growing season and at night. One might consider simply moving MN crops to Canada. It would be a good idea if the glaciers hadn't simply scraped the really fertile soil from Canada and dumped it in the upper midwest of the US, so doing so would drastically reduce the growing area of temperature sensitive crops (e.g., canola).
Example references: http://aesop.rutgers.edu/~horteng/Workshop/Lecture2.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vernalization

Third, a warmer growing season does NOT equate to a LONGER growing season. The sun's position dictates growing season, not temperature. Many crops will begin to senesce at the end of the solar growing season, regardless of the temperature. While plant breeding and crop engineering may be able to produce crops that don't, traditional plant breeding can take a long time to get crops that behave as expected and the world in general pretty much looks down on genetically engineered crops.
Example references:
http://ag.arizona.edu/pubs/garden/mg/botany/environmental.html#light
http://jxb.oxfordjournals.org/content/60/9/2529.full

Fourth, warmer average temperatures or more humid atmosphere can make it harder to control some crop pests and diseases. Many pests and diseases are killed off during the winter freeze, and the longer the temperature stays above freezing, the more damage they can do. And the greater the numbers come spring again. Since warmer air can hold more water, humidity is also an issue. Humidity favors many crop diseases.
Example references:
http://www.nt.gov.au/nreta/museums/objects/pdf/freezinghandout.pdf
http://rsif.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/5/22/525.full
http://www.ag.ndsu.edu/pubs/plantsci/pests/eb31w.htm
http://www.freshplaza.com/news_detail.asp?id=91423

Fifth, global warming makes weather even more unpredictable. We may still be able to predict a storm tomorrow or a rainy or dry or warm or cold trend next week, but increased atmospheric temperatures mean a greater capacity for holding water. This changes precipitation patterns, leaving some areas overly wet and others incredibly dry. Rain shadows (the area behind mountains that tend to be dry) may become extended...or shortened, while the clouds on the leading side of high elevations may be inclined to drop even more moisture...or not, simply because the air is warmer higher up than it used to be.

Sixth, warmer atmospheric temperature inherently means more stored energy in the atmosphere. This very well could lead to stronger storms (there is some evidence of this), which results in greater crop damage and localized flooding. Any farmer will tell you that a good hail or flood will kill a crop as dead as a drought or an early cold snap.

I'm sure there are many other bits of information about the "benefits" of global warming, but I don't have time to dig them all up.

Honestly, if I can rattle these things off the top of my head, one has to wonder whether you were simply trying to cast doubt on Don's ability to investigate and report. Closing your eyes to what's already out there doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. But then, I suspect that the purpose of your questions was simply to make it LOOK like the research hadn't been done when it actually had.

@2: You don't do research on the "benefits" of global warming, you try to find the probable outcomes be they good or bad. And there will be some good and some bad, and if you take a look at wikipedia there's a boatload of research on the topic. On the whole, it looks more bad than good. In any case, understanding earth's rising temperatures is fairly easy compared to predicting all of the potential outcomes, and while there is good science being done on them, it might be better to avoid turning the entire planet into an experiment.

Last month we published my Open Letter to Attorney General Lori Swanson:
News
An open letter to MN Attorney General Lori Swanson
BY ED FELIEN

Dear Attorney General Lori Swanson, If it was possible for the State of Minnesota to sue the tobacco industry for the damage they knowingly perpetrated on Minnesota citizens and recover monies to compensate for those damages, then why is it not possible to sue the five major oil companies and Koch Brothers Refinery for the health problems and deaths that have resulted from the transmission and burning of fossil fuels when they have known for years the damage they were doing to the people of Minnesota and to the climate and planet?

Most recently, according to the New York Times, Nov. 17, ”The business community and its Republican allies in Congress went to war” against proposed smog control rules. They defeated the Obama Administration’s environmental officials, a “victory” for polluters projected to cause 7,200 annual American deaths, which could have been avoided. That’s more annual deaths than the combined American fatalities in Iraq and Afghanistan, which were 6,317 as of Nov. 21.

In “Capitalism vs. the Climate,” an article written for The Nation, Nov. 9, Naomi Kline says, “The top five oil companies made $900 billion in profits in the past decade; ExxonMobil alone can clear $10 billion in profits in a single quarter. For years, these companies have pledged to use their profits to invest in a shift to renewable energy (BP’s ‘Beyond Petroleum’ rebranding being the highest-profile example). But according to a study by the Center for American Progress, just 4 percent of the big five’s $100 billion in combined 2008 profits went to ‘renewable and alternative energy ventures.’ Instead, they continue to pour their profits into shareholder pockets, outrageous executive pay and new technologies designed to extract even dirtier and more dangerous fossil fuels. Plenty of money has also gone to paying lobbyists to beat back every piece of climate legislation that has reared its head, and to fund the denier movement gathered at the Marriott Hotel (the Heartland Institute’s Sixth International Conference on Climate Change, the premier gathering for those dedicated to denying the overwhelming scientific consensus that human activity is warming the planet).

“Just as tobacco companies have been obliged to pay the costs of helping people to quit smoking, and BP has had to pay for the cleanup in the Gulf of Mexico, it is high time for the ‘polluter pays’ principle to be applied to climate change.”

The facts are in and they are incontrovertible:

The temperature of the earth is rising. The polar ice caps are melting. Glaciers and mountain snows are rapidly melting. Coral reefs are dying. Sea levels are rising. The National Geographic on June 4, 2007, said “More than a million species face extinction from disappearing habitat, changing ecosystems.”
It’s time to settle this matter. Let’s have it out in a court of law.

Lori Swanson, you represent the people of Minnesota. You are our attorney. We need you to fight for us now. We need you to fight for our next generation, for the species that face extinction, for the planet.

In 1998 the four largest tobacco companies agreed to a master lawsuit between them and 46 states that will put hundreds of millions of dollars every year in the Minnesota state general fund in perpetuity in exchange for the damage the tobacco industry had knowingly done to the health of Minnesotans. Further, the tobacco industry had to disband its propaganda machines that challenged the science substantiating the health risks of tobacco, and they were compelled to pay for tobacco cessation programs to help people stop their addiction to tobacco.

We ask you to do the same with the major oil companies and Koch Refineries: They must pay, in perpetuity, for the irreparable damage they have done to the environment and for the health costs associated with the burning of fossil fuels. They must stop their false propaganda supporting climate deniers. They must fund alternative energy sources and organizations like Transition Town that are trying to create a world beyond our dependence on fossil fuels.

This is your moment, Lori Swanson. The people of Minnesota, the people of the world and the ecosystem of the planet are depending on you

Possible benefits of global warming? How about delaying the next ice age?

Human emissions of carbon dioxide will defer the next Ice Age, say scientists.

The last Ice Age ended about 11,500 years ago, and when the next one should begin has not been entirely clear.

Researchers used data on the Earth's orbit and other things to find the historical warm interglacial period that looks most like the current one.

In the journal Nature Geoscience, they write that the next Ice Age would begin within 1,500 years - but emissions have been so high that it will not.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16439807

If you believe "the science" we are helping mankind by avoiding being buried under 4 km of ice.

According to the financial statements (http://www.pacinst.org/about_us/financial_information/10%20Audit.pdf), Dr. Gleick's company, the Pacific Institute for Development Environment and Security (sounds veeery scientific) receives funding not only from the usual warmer suspects (NOAA, United Nations et. al), but from...wait for it...The Open Society Institute:

http://www.soros.org

BS indeed.

Don opines that:

"If a candidate takes the stump in Concord or Manchester and says global warming is a hoax perpetrated by a cabal of leftist scientists, I would bet someone in the crowd shouts, “B.S!” They could be referring to bad science. Or they could be just telling like it is."

But before coming to any conclusions, better to check their wallet for a SorosCheque©.

"Warmers" are "pseudo-scientists"... which means, I guess, that 99% of scientists are "pseudo-scientists". It's like every day is opposite day in conservative ideology land.

So you are backing up your claims with an online article from a right-wing glorified blog? Seriously? When EVERY scientific organization of national or international standing agrees about the tenets of climate change? When thousands upon thousands of peer-reviewed studies agree with the tenets of climate change? When numerous peer-reviewed surveys of climate scientists find only a tiny fringe that doesn't agree?

Breaking news!

"Calling BS on Peter Gleick’s Climate BS Nominees"

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2011/01/07/calling-bs-on-pet...

As can be seen, defenders of true science are sick of being bullied by scam artists and leftist propagandists.

A quick check of funding sources for World Climate Report disclosed no KochBucks©...just credible scientists doing thier jobs.

Checkmate, Dr. Gleick.

Prof Gleason reminds us, once again, that when dealing with leftists, one must always dot the "i" and cross the "t" lest they reinvent the meaning of "is".

Don trotted that piece of reasearch out some months ago, Prof. The authors are careful to say that they did not come to any conclusions as to causation.

Most scientists agree that the mean temperature has risen some, but it is only scam artists and leftists who attempt to concretely, and foolishly attribute it to anything in particular.

There simply isn't enough reliable data to support any conclusions.

I suppose it's been quite some time since you've seen the inside of a lab, Prof., but trust me here; the scientific method is still in play when doing true science.

Finally, we see that not only do the Koch bros finance science, they do not direct it's outcome. I'd like to challenge global warming apologists to point out where George Soros ever financed scientific research of any type.

What is a leftist propagandist's cash doing in the bank account of "one of the world’s leading hydro-climatologists"?

Rachel, you might have missed it, but the subject of this thread is a childish rant by a Soros funded, psuedo-scientist without any data.

It doesn't even have any big words to make us feel important...you'd think George would expect a better bang for his bucks.

If global warming started in the mid 50s or even earlier as some claim when our population was half, then there is absolutely no way we can mitigate it. That's the simple fact with 7 billion people growing to 10 billion needing a carbon footprint to exist. It's very simple math. Run the numbers. The only alternative is adaptation and figuring out the least disruptive way to adapt.

What's more important than fretting over global warming is husbanding our energy resources because they are finite and alternative renewable energy sources will never physically make up the gap. Coal is eventually going to be mined. The shale is eventually going to get fracked. We are going to eventually have to build more nuclear energy power generators and that uranium near the Grand Canyon is going to be extracted. If you don't like any of this then you best start conserving for your generation and the generations you will personally know.

Regardless, nature is an ebb and tide and is sometimes cruel, but it eventually balances out. Humans in the balance of things are the cancer of the Earth. Our unique intelligence with the ability to create causes that unbalanced growth and desire cancer that could eventually destroy us.

Doomsday talk. Yes, unfortunately. Our survival most likely will depend on our unique intelligence to create a breakthrough we cannot even conceive or speculate on at this time. But we are not going to stem global warming doing our feel good duties of "turning down the thermostat."

@#12 -

"Possible benefits of global warming? How about delaying the next ice age?
...
If you believe "the science" we are helping mankind by avoiding being buried under 4 km of ice. "

At the cost of flooding every coastal zone in the world, where hundreds of millions of people live and our largest cities are. Where every port will have to be replaced or saved with massive engineering works. Do you have any idea how many trillions of dollars that's going to cost? Just how are we going to be able to afford that? How many people are going to have to be resettled - into areas where there are already people? Seems rather a large cost to me, so you can run around in shorts in January.

@#19 - "All resources stretched tighter than a bowstring because of 7+ billion people on the globe, yet the story following this one is about.... child obesity! "

In the West, due largely to eating a lot of junk and not moving around enough. Almost every processed food in the grocery stores is spiked with corn syrup - pure sugar - washed down, most likely, with soda. Exactly the kind of food the poorest folks are obliged to live on. That's hardly reassuring.

I'm sure that will be good news to the 1 billion children living in poverty, the 925 million who are malnourished, the 1.1 billion with inadequate access to clean water, the 80% of the world's population who live on less than $10/day. All of this will get worse as climate change proceeds, agriculture is disrupted, population continues to expand to 9 billion and beyond, and energy prices soar. With all due respect, you need to get your nose out of your cheeseburger and pay attention to conditions in the world.

Jeff #2:

Your take is one of the biggest BS'ings out there. The idea that there is only funding for climate change believers. You all say, "Follow the money."

The denier money dwarfs, absolutely dwarfs, the scholarly research money out there. Trust me jeff, if there was a case to be made for climate change being good, even a made up case, Fox and the Koch's would have been spreading it long ago.

No money for climate deniers. Please.

#30 "The denier money dwarfs, absolutely dwarfs, the scholarly research money out there."

Any specifics to back up this statement?

Greenpeace found $23 million paid to skeptics over 10 years.

Exxon spent $100 million for Stanfords Global Climate and Energy Project and $600 million for Biofuels research.

The US Government spent $79 billion on climate research and technology from 1989 to 2008 according to the Science and Public Policy Institute.

Academics need a crisis to insure continued funding for their research concerning the "settled science".

Big carbon trading reached $126 billion in 2008 and remember Obama received the most money from BP than any other politician.

It's really not worth engaging with the Mr. Tester and Mr. Swift and their friends on these matters, unfortunately. Sadly, there is no way they can understand what's happening to us other than "a vast leftist conspiracy". You can't help them understand the science they so actively don't want to understand, all they will do is conclude that you are arrogant and elitist. They have learned the key lesson of right-wing politics in our age... state whatever you want, don't worry about backing it up with serious references or original source material because most people don't have the skills to hold you accountable. In the end, climate change deniers and believers will all face the same dimly glimpsed fate, most likely a very difficult one as the carrying capacity of our planet is diminished to the point of disaster, but I suppose there may be some small solace in the fact that they will have ever so slightly more blame to bear for exacerbating an existing problem at this late date. I concur with those here who said we need to look at the likely results of global warming and ignore the naysayers altogether. I encourage all of you to save your energy for the real problems and stop trying to convince others of what isn't really all that debatable anyway.

"Academics need a crisis to insure continued funding for their research concerning the "settled science"."

*Bam*

And leftists have realized the opportunities AGW presents to grow the power of government and control the lives of individuals.

"As with most any serious scientific study, skepticism, at least healthy skepticism (if that can at all be accomplished), should be a big part of the dialogue."

I agree, John. But as I'm sure you've noted, people that are convinced the AGW is legitimate have hung a big neon "CONSENSUS" sign on their opinions and are quick to pounce on skeptics.

The perfect case in point is made by the subject of this very post. Dr. Gleik, in what can certainly be called a rant, has labeled three scientific collegues with at least as impressive CV's as his own, "BS". Not their skepticism, mind you, the men themselves...or maybe Don added that in a flourish of creative writing.

Perhaps regarding civility, the "expert" can learn something from we, the unwashed MinnPost commentators!