> What evidence is there that there can't be more crop production at more northern, theoretically then warmer, altitudes?

A common misunderstanding of global warming is the belief that all points on Earth will see their temperature rise by the same amount.

The average temperature will rise, but many regions of Earth will actually see their temperature go down. Unfortunately, those regions are already not particularly warm, like Antarctica.

Northern regions of Earth have their temperature heavily tied to the amount of sunlight they receive. While they will indeed get warmer compared to now, they will still be cold, and there is nothing that can be done about the six months of night time. Going to Siberia is not the answer, no matter how much you like Mr Putin.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e6/Projecte...

As for rising sea levels: for obvious reasons, settlements near the sea are common. Rebuilding all those cities will be a tremendous cost. Human migration will also be politically straining, which may cause a part of the US to secede. Immigration tends to irritate people for some reason. A famous US president was recently elected thanks to that resentment.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5c/6m_Sea_L...

As for wildlife, rapid changes in temperature are correlated with mass extinction according to the fossil record. In fact, we are already currently undergoing a mass extinction, which is expected to go on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction#Global_war....

So wait, let me get this straight. You're asking if any evidence exists refuting your questions, excepting the entirety of the output of the community dedicated to studying the problem?

I am looking for evidence so that humans can draw wise conclusions.

I point out that a group of people who are employed primarily by a single source are going to generate opinions that are favorable to that source.

If they don't, they are handicapping their ability to put food on the table. Work can still be found without catering to the primary source, but it's not as financially beneficial to do so.

Most scientific studies are not funded to give those that paid for it false information to make them feel good. It is to get actual scientific data. You can lie to yourself in a bubble for much cheaper than paying teams of scientists to make up a fake reality for your own ego.

True, but there is a significant risk of false information if the sponsor then can financially gain. For example, if the U.S. government felt that belief in climate change would be economically advantageous, they could pressure local researchers to find in favor of climate change. It seems unlikely that the Chinese government would have a mechanism to issue U.S. grants, however.

This happens all the time in marketing. Although, to be fair, those studies are often preceded by a number of more accurate private studies, and only the publicized one is suspect.

The U.S. government decidedly does NOT think climate change is economically advantageous, and they have fought any measures against it tooth and nail.

If so, that would be a good explanation for some of the publicly funded research that finds climate change nonexistent or unimpactful.

By that logic, consensus should be the only thing you would trust. Paying people for new findings disincentivizes consensus, unless perhaps those people have several avenues to explore and are willing to close off some of the less promising ones - again in favor of consensus being trustworthy.

there is no evidence that you are looking for evidence.

> Thank you for telling us the consensus of people who literally depend on government grants for their paychecks.

It's a loose, circumstantial, conspiratorial aspersion, which has nothing to do with the facts of climate change. Maybe they could make more by providing credibility to the oil and gas industry.

Again, look up IPCC reports. We're not a forum of climate scientists. I believe gravity also exists; I haven't read the papers myself and don't have time to find them.

You would not be using the internet were it not for research done by scientists on government grants, moron.

Nor would your or your loved ones' lives be saved next time you're in the hospital.

You can't call other users morons here.

There's nothing wrong with government grants.

I only point out that there is an incentive to agree with the hand that feeds you. This goes for labs employed by industry as well.

If there was any incentive, it would be to deny the problem - after all, discovering global warming leads to the prospect of having to do expensive and unpopular things about it.

If a climatologist "denies" that climate change is a problem, there will be less government spending on researching that problem. Furthermore, he won't get a job from the purse that thinks it's a problem - generating data that shows that it isn't a problem would take away the purse's job too.

You seem to be conflating the benefits of society with the benefits of a living, breathing academic who has kids to feed and bills to pay. There is no conscious "government" - there are only conscious individual actors.

What do you think 'researching that problem' actually involves? Do you think scientists are just paid to sit there and type out bullshit reports?

No, they have to produce real, scientific studies which are peer reviewed by other scientists all over the world. If there's a bullshit study, that's usually quickly discredited and the scientist's reputation damaged. (See: Andrew Wakefield)

You're also living in a delusional world where scientists are not in high demand and can't find a much higher paying job at a private corporation, if they wanted to.

Doing science for a government contract is a step down for most scientists.

These are highly trained, skilled, educated, and intelligent people you're talking about.

While scientists will express their opinions of the data and findings of a study, the scientific method is not an op-ed piece. The great thing about science is that a study comes with a thesis, a description of assumptions, a discussion of the experimental design, data, analysis of data, and a discussion of the conclusions. Other scientists can check the work, both via peer review at the publishing stage, and by judging and reproducing the work after publication. If they believe there's a problem with the experimental design, they can describe the problem. If they believe there's something wrong with the data, or the analysis of the data, they can explain what's wrong. Or run new experiments that demonstrate what's wrong, and publish those studies in turn. This process does create a bias of sorts, but it's the right kind: a bias toward wanting to be shown to be thorough, professional, neutral, and logical in the drawing of conclusions -- and have one's work hold up to attempts at refutation by other scientists, including those with a strong desire to prove the conclusion is wrong.

If a scientist is biased by having an employer with an agenda, and that bias manifests in a study, then that study can be exposed as faulty by other scientists. That's how science works. So unless you believe a global cabal of thousands of scientists and their many different employers are all somehow coordinated in their unwillingness to judge each other's studies as flawed, you must give credence to the overwhelming support among scientists for the idea of anthropogenic climate change.

Likewise, if you believe the multitude of studies is flawed, then go ahead and show how. Pick any couple of dozen and have at it. There are plenty of employers with a strong and admitted bias against global warming (e.g. the oil and gas industry), and they employ scientists. If those scientists produce irrefutable studies disproving anthropogenic climate change, then that would become the accepted science, and those scientists would be viewed as luminaries in the field.

As for the cabal: unfortunately, many believe in exactly that -- including, nominally, President-elect Trump, who has stated climate change is a "hoax". I doubt he believes it's literally a hoax, but I don't doubt he understands that acceptance of the science threatens the bank accounts of those making money from the implicated processes. The same people driving the regulatory capture process, plowing money into congressional elections, etc. The real cabal is the force against the science.

There are so few studies leaning in the other direction that it should be easy to choose an "unfairly" discredited one and expose its field-wide refutations as illogical and biased.

In other posts, you make a big deal of evidence, so where is your evidence here?

Borders don't conveniently move. Uninhabitable deserts aren't a good thing.

Do not pretend that you have made any attempt to find answers to these questions.

Rapidly shifting environmental conditions usually lead to less, not more, animal diversity, because of invasive species and ecosystem collapse. Greater temperatures are associated with greater biodiversity overall, but this would be of foreign species.