Let me say first that I don't subscribe to the skeptical argument at issue here. However, if I were a climate scientist looking to push the conclusion that would get me the most funding, I think there's a good case to be made for emphasizing the certainty of the science so far, given the current political climate. If I emphasize the uncertainty, then the Bush-Howard crowd will say "oh, so it's probably not happening, so we'll cut your funding." But if I emphasize the certainty, they'll say "crap, we can't keep doing nothing -- let's stall by demanding more research anyway."

Also, I don't think the IPCC report is as uncongenial to additional research as you suggest -- our understanding of the basic science is good, but there's still lots of work to be done on clarifying regional and local impacts, and developing adaptive strategies, none of which would be happening without a degree of certainty at the more basic level.

A scientist who is not able to meet expectations will not be funded during the next grant cycle. There are more scientists than money to support them. It is very competitive.

If someone drags his or her feet and claims they are "almost done" year after year, the granting agencies will stop feeding them and their career will be over.

Now, business on the other hand is probably happy trying to convince the government that we don't have enough information to start reacting to global warming. They benefit in two ways. First, they don't have to clean up their act. Second, they can sell more and more satellites and computing power to Federal agenencies. As long as the jury is still out, business profits.

Scientists would probably like to move on from trying to convince the last one or two skeptics that we are about to experience a tsunami of global climate change sweeping around our planet, and actually work on solving the problem or finding ways to adapt to it.

Forward!

Scientists are trying to be uncertain to get more money, but at the same time trying to alarm people into giving them more funding? Surely it's got to be one or the other.

It's sad that even scientists have lost their credibility, and become more human in the public eye. More people seem to believe politicians. And that's alarming.

If I share initials with 'Global Warming', is that a sign?

Do we have a better word than "Alarmist" ?

Certainly thats taking the skeptic's lingo and using it on ourselves.

There's gotta be something better than that.

>> See here for an explanation of why you should believe it.  >>

well clouds seem to be in everyone's eyes, and inconsistent ocean warming, and galloping drought...
just for starters

and now the talk is of a snowball Earth.... global warming is being trashed by many qualified and sound scientists.

Climate, projected on "proxy" data, and perceived trends, all concocted to fit current observations via computer programs... err programmers !!

well you have great faith, time will sort it out, but will humanity still be here if all the alchemy is incorrect... or worse still totally fabricated.

An someone who thinks money will save them is standing behind all the ill informed.

There is a big difference between science and business. I escaped from the lab and am now in business. In business you get paid (well I do anyway) to sort a problem. Science is much less defined in an endpoint. When you apply for a grant you will have a defined project but that in itself is usually not going to be the end of all research in that field!

People who claim that scientists are really in it together to make money don't know what they are talking about.

First of all, look at the cars and clothing of most scientists... If it was money they were after they would be working for Exxon... I know why I left science and went into business. You need true passion for science to stick with it.

Secondly, if you go to any science conference the amount of sniping and arguing taking place... Agreement is rarely the word that springs to mind.