Global Warming Pie Chart

[Freewill]

Freewill, that's very cultlike behavior of you, fixating on some member of the opposition to demonize.

Here on the rational side, no one cares about Gore, being he's not a scientist. We look at the science, not the personalities. It's only the denialist cultists who go obsessive over individuals, such as Gore or Hansen or Mann. Get 'em talking long enough, and you'll find the denialist cultists want the gulag for anyone doing science that disagrees with their politics. Scratch a denialist, find a Soviet.

I shouldn't really say "denialist cultists", being the cult is the right-wing fringe in general. Denialism is just one of many crank beliefs that the right wing fringe cult is kind of ordered to embrace. They'll tell you Hitler was a leftist, DDT is harmless, abiotic oil exists in vast quantities, supply side economics didn't really fail hard, Obama is a socialist, AGW is a socialist plot ... the list of batshit crazy stupidity goes on and on. Denialism is a purely political belief, embraced only by a small fringe in areas dominated by the corporate conservative English-speaking media. That is, the USA, Canada, UK and Australia. Though after last summer in Australia, denialism appears to have gone down the shitter there.

In contrast, AGW science is global and crosses all political boundaries. It's science-driven instead of politics-driven. It's not that science is liberal, it's that both science and liberalism are based on rationality, hence why most scientists now self-identify as liberal. (The batshit crazy cult, of course, will declare scientists across the globe are all in it only for the funding.)

Are you thumping your chest as you post this?

When will we expect you to be fully living up to your fears and turning off your computer?

What ill effect has GW wrought onto your life? The extended winter we are seeing? The 4 inches of GW I had to plow just yesterday?

Why are liberals so scared of EVERYTHING? Scared of educated blacks, scared of it getting warmer when they should be scared of it getting colder or not scared at all because there really isn't much we can do about it. Scared even when it has not warmed since 1998. Scared of little old ladies with tea bags hanging from their hats.

You know, wringing your hands together in fear creates heat.

My suggestion is don't buy the hype, I did in the 70s and it turned out we weren't entering a new ice age, they were wrong.

 

[Antares]

C'mon Gramps, I gave you a list of Scientists to disprove...

Hypocrite.

Well Toddster, once again you prove your general ignorance in all fields.

The Black And White Numbers ? Democrats Are Better Than Republicans | Addicting Info

1.Debt and Deficit. In the past 17 Presidential terms, nine were GOP led and eight Democratic. Of nine GOP Presidents, six added to debt/GDP and deficit/GDP as a percent. The only three that did not, had a Democratic House and Senate. Of eight Democrats, each one, reduced deficit/GDP and debt/GDP as a percent. That is 66 years of rhetoric of fiscal responsibility with zero net results for GOP. What makes matters even worse, is the fact that the president who added a historical 20.7% to the debt has one unique aspect of his presidency – President G. W. Bush had a GOP majority House and Senate.

2.Spending. The Republican Party often talks about financial responsibility, but did you know that since 1978-2011, spending has gone up 9.9% under Democrats versus 12.1% under GOP.

3.Federal Debt. Republicans love to tell us how they will not close tax loopholes on millionaires and billionaires, yet never bring to our attention that from 1978-2011 debt went up 4.2% under Democrats versus 36.4% under the GOP.

 

[Old Rocks]

How very intellectual of you

You are projecting kid.
You have one defense, you scream "Nuh-Uh"!!!
No matter what is said.

Mann is STILL one of the most quoted "scholars" on the subject today, you just aren't very smart kid.

Freewill, that's very cultlike behavior of you, fixating on some member of the opposition to demonize.

Here on the rational side, no one cares about Gore, being he's not a scientist. We look at the science, not the personalities. It's only the denialist cultists who go obsessive over individuals, such as Gore or Hansen or Mann. Get 'em talking long enough, and you'll find the denialist cultists want the gulag for anyone doing science that disagrees with their politics. Scratch a denialist, find a Soviet.

I shouldn't really say "denialist cultists", being the cult is the right-wing fringe in general. Denialism is just one of many crank beliefs that the right wing fringe cult is kind of ordered to embrace. They'll tell you Hitler was a leftist, DDT is harmless, abiotic oil exists in vast quantities, supply side economics didn't really fail hard, Obama is a socialist, AGW is a socialist plot ... the list of batshit crazy stupidity goes on and on. Denialism is a purely political belief, embraced only by a small fringe in areas dominated by the corporate conservative English-speaking media. That is, the USA, Canada, UK and Australia. Though after last summer in Australia, denialism appears to have gone down the shitter there.

In contrast, AGW science is global and crosses all political boundaries. It's science-driven instead of politics-driven. It's not that science is liberal, it's that both science and liberalism are based on rationality, hence why most scientists now self-identify as liberal. (The batshit crazy cult, of course, will declare scientists across the globe are all in it only for the funding.)

Of course Mann is still one of the most quoted scientists in this field. He is one of the foremost and most respected scientists in this field. There have been more than a dozen independent studies that have confirmed and refined the Mann Graph.

RealClimate: Myth vs. Fact Regarding the "Hockey Stick"

MYTH #1: The "Hockey Stick" Reconstruction is based solely on two publications by climate scientist Michael Mann and colleagues (Mann et al, 1998;1999).



This is patently false. Nearly a dozen model-based and proxy-based reconstructions of Northern Hemisphere mean temperature by different groups all suggest that late 20th century warmth is anomalous in a long-term (multi-century to millennial) context (see Figures 1 and 2 in “Temperature Variations in Past Centuries and The So-Called ‘Hockey Stick’”).

Some proxy-based reconstructions suggest greater variability than others. This greater variability may be attributable to different emphases in seasonal and spatial emphasis (see Jones and Mann, 2004; Rutherford et al, 2004; Cook et al, 2004). However, even for those reconstructions which suggest a colder “Little Ice Age” and greater variability in general in past centuries, such as that of Esper et al (2002), late 20th century hemispheric warmth is still found to be anomalous in the context of the reconstruction (see Cook et al, 2004).

 

[Old Rocks]

C'mon Gramps, I gave you a list of Scientists to disprove...

Hypocrite.

Well Toddster, once again you prove your general ignorance in all fields.

The Black And White Numbers ? Democrats Are Better Than Republicans | Addicting Info

1.Debt and Deficit. In the past 17 Presidential terms, nine were GOP led and eight Democratic. Of nine GOP Presidents, six added to debt/GDP and deficit/GDP as a percent. The only three that did not, had a Democratic House and Senate. Of eight Democrats, each one, reduced deficit/GDP and debt/GDP as a percent. That is 66 years of rhetoric of fiscal responsibility with zero net results for GOP. What makes matters even worse, is the fact that the president who added a historical 20.7% to the debt has one unique aspect of his presidency – President G. W. Bush had a GOP majority House and Senate.

2.Spending. The Republican Party often talks about financial responsibility, but did you know that since 1978-2011, spending has gone up 9.9% under Democrats versus 12.1% under GOP.

3.Federal Debt. Republicans love to tell us how they will not close tax loopholes on millionaires and billionaires, yet never bring to our attention that from 1978-2011 debt went up 4.2% under Democrats versus 36.4% under the GOP.

Roo, you gave me a list with no links. I have given you links for every statement I say the scientists make. So, give me some links to the peer reviewed articles that these researchers have published.

 

[Old Rocks]

Freewill, that's very cultlike behavior of you, fixating on some member of the opposition to demonize.

Here on the rational side, no one cares about Gore, being he's not a scientist. We look at the science, not the personalities. It's only the denialist cultists who go obsessive over individuals, such as Gore or Hansen or Mann. Get 'em talking long enough, and you'll find the denialist cultists want the gulag for anyone doing science that disagrees with their politics. Scratch a denialist, find a Soviet.

I shouldn't really say "denialist cultists", being the cult is the right-wing fringe in general. Denialism is just one of many crank beliefs that the right wing fringe cult is kind of ordered to embrace. They'll tell you Hitler was a leftist, DDT is harmless, abiotic oil exists in vast quantities, supply side economics didn't really fail hard, Obama is a socialist, AGW is a socialist plot ... the list of batshit crazy stupidity goes on and on. Denialism is a purely political belief, embraced only by a small fringe in areas dominated by the corporate conservative English-speaking media. That is, the USA, Canada, UK and Australia. Though after last summer in Australia, denialism appears to have gone down the shitter there.

In contrast, AGW science is global and crosses all political boundaries. It's science-driven instead of politics-driven. It's not that science is liberal, it's that both science and liberalism are based on rationality, hence why most scientists now self-identify as liberal. (The batshit crazy cult, of course, will declare scientists across the globe are all in it only for the funding.)

Are you thumping your chest as you post this?

When will we expect you to be fully living up to your fears and turning off your computer?

What ill effect has GW wrought onto your life? The extended winter we are seeing? The 4 inches of GW I had to plow just yesterday?

Why are liberals so scared of EVERYTHING? Scared of educated blacks, scared of it getting warmer when they should be scared of it getting colder or not scared at all because there really isn't much we can do about it. Scared even when it has not warmed since 1998. Scared of little old ladies with tea bags hanging from their hats.

You know, wringing your hands together in fear creates heat.

My suggestion is don't buy the hype, I did in the 70s and it turned out we weren't entering a new ice age, they were wrong.

You 'bought' the hype in the '70s? Then you are and continue to be one dumb bastard. Because there was very little hype for an imminant ice age in the '70s. What you read were hyped articles in Newsweek and Time by 'journalists' that had no knowledge of science.

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

Climate science as we know it today did not exist in the 1960s and 1970s. The integrated enterprise embodied in the Nobel Prizewinning work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change existed then as separate threads of research pursued by isolated groups of scientists. Atmospheric chemists and modelers grappled with the measurement of changes in carbon dioxide and atmospheric gases, and the changes in climate that might result. Meanwhile, geologists and paleoclimate researchers tried to understand when Earth slipped into and out of ice ages, and why. An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming. A review of the literature suggests that, on the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking as being one of the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales. More importantly than showing the falsehood of the myth, this review describes how scientists of the time built the foundation on which the cohesive enterprise of modern climate science now rests.

RealClimate: The global cooling mole

During the period we analyzed, climate science was very different from what you see today. There was far less integration among the various sub-disciplines that make up the enterprise. Remote sensing, integrated global data collection and modeling were all in their infancy. But our analysis nevertheless showed clear trends in the focus and conclusions the researchers were making. Between 1965 and 1979 we found (see table 1 for details):
•7 articles predicting cooling
•44 predicting warming
•20 that were neutral

In other words, during the 1970s, when some would have you believe scientists were predicting a coming ice age, they were doing no such thing. The dominant view, even then, was that increasing levels of greenhouse gases were likely to dominate any changes we might see in climate on human time scales.

 

[Antares]

Old man, google names and disprove them...it is a list from Wiki which has no bearing..they dispute your shit.

Disprove them.


The Hockey Stick is done, you just can't stand it pops.

C'mon Gramps, I gave you a list of Scientists to disprove...

Hypocrite.

Well Toddster, once again you prove your general ignorance in all fields.

The Black And White Numbers ? Democrats Are Better Than Republicans | Addicting Info

1.Debt and Deficit. In the past 17 Presidential terms, nine were GOP led and eight Democratic. Of nine GOP Presidents, six added to debt/GDP and deficit/GDP as a percent. The only three that did not, had a Democratic House and Senate. Of eight Democrats, each one, reduced deficit/GDP and debt/GDP as a percent. That is 66 years of rhetoric of fiscal responsibility with zero net results for GOP. What makes matters even worse, is the fact that the president who added a historical 20.7% to the debt has one unique aspect of his presidency – President G. W. Bush had a GOP majority House and Senate.

2.Spending. The Republican Party often talks about financial responsibility, but did you know that since 1978-2011, spending has gone up 9.9% under Democrats versus 12.1% under GOP.

3.Federal Debt. Republicans love to tell us how they will not close tax loopholes on millionaires and billionaires, yet never bring to our attention that from 1978-2011 debt went up 4.2% under Democrats versus 36.4% under the GOP.

Roo, you gave me a list with no links. I have given you links for every statement I say the scientists make. So, give me some links to the peer reviewed articles that these researchers have published.

 

[Old Rocks]

Can't stand what, Roo? A list without referance as to what they said concerning AGW? I posted links to all of my sources, you do the same if you expect me to give them the time of day.

 

[Antares]

(smile) You asked for Scientists who disagreed with your GW position, I gave them to you.

I called your bluff and you lost, its ok.

Can't stand what, Roo? A list without referance as to what they said concerning AGW? I posted links to all of my sources, you do the same if you expect me to give them the time of day.

 

[Old Rocks]

Did you now? What was their basis of disagreement? You published nothing but a list of names without referance to what they had published or researched.
2012 AMS Information Statement on Climate Change


Warming of the climate system now is unequivocal, according to many different kinds of evidence. Observations show increases in globally averaged air and ocean temperatures, as well as widespread melting of snow and ice and rising globally averaged sea level. Surface temperature data for Earth as a whole, including readings over both land and ocean, show an increase of about 0.8°C (1.4°F) over the period 1901─2010 and about 0.5°C (0.9°F) over the period 1979–2010 (the era for which satellite-based temperature data are routinely available). Due to natural variability, not every year is warmer than the preceding year globally. Nevertheless, all of the 10 warmest years in the global temperature records up to 2011 have occurred since 1997, with 2005 and 2010 being the warmest two years in more than a century of global records. The warming trend is greatest in northern high latitudes and over land. In the U.S., most of the observed warming has occurred in the West and in Alaska; for the nation as a whole, there have been twice as many record daily high temperatures as record daily low temperatures in the first decade of the 21st century.

The effects of this warming are especially evident in the planet’s polar regions. Arctic sea ice extent and volume have been decreasing for the past several decades. Both the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have lost significant amounts of ice. Most of the world’s glaciers are in retreat.

Other changes, globally and in the U.S., are also occurring at the same time. The amount of rain falling in very heavy precipitation events (the heaviest 1% of all precipitation events) has increased over the last 50 years throughout the U.S. Freezing levels are rising in elevation, with rain occurring more frequently instead of snow at mid-elevations of western mountains. Spring maximum snowpack is decreasing, snowmelt occurs earlier, and the spring runoff that supplies over two-thirds of western U.S. streamflow is reduced. Evidence for warming is also observed in seasonal changes across many areas, including earlier springs, longer frost-free periods, longer growing seasons, and shifts in natural habitats and in migratory patterns of birds and insects.

 

[Antares]

Pops I gave you what you asked for, you can dance and you can deflect but you can't run.

Did you now? What was their basis of disagreement? You published nothing but a list of names without referance to what they had published or researched.
2012 AMS Information Statement on Climate Change


Warming of the climate system now is unequivocal, according to many different kinds of evidence. Observations show increases in globally averaged air and ocean temperatures, as well as widespread melting of snow and ice and rising globally averaged sea level. Surface temperature data for Earth as a whole, including readings over both land and ocean, show an increase of about 0.8°C (1.4°F) over the period 1901─2010 and about 0.5°C (0.9°F) over the period 1979–2010 (the era for which satellite-based temperature data are routinely available). Due to natural variability, not every year is warmer than the preceding year globally. Nevertheless, all of the 10 warmest years in the global temperature records up to 2011 have occurred since 1997, with 2005 and 2010 being the warmest two years in more than a century of global records. The warming trend is greatest in northern high latitudes and over land. In the U.S., most of the observed warming has occurred in the West and in Alaska; for the nation as a whole, there have been twice as many record daily high temperatures as record daily low temperatures in the first decade of the 21st century.

The effects of this warming are especially evident in the planet’s polar regions. Arctic sea ice extent and volume have been decreasing for the past several decades. Both the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have lost significant amounts of ice. Most of the world’s glaciers are in retreat.

Other changes, globally and in the U.S., are also occurring at the same time. The amount of rain falling in very heavy precipitation events (the heaviest 1% of all precipitation events) has increased over the last 50 years throughout the U.S. Freezing levels are rising in elevation, with rain occurring more frequently instead of snow at mid-elevations of western mountains. Spring maximum snowpack is decreasing, snowmelt occurs earlier, and the spring runoff that supplies over two-thirds of western U.S. streamflow is reduced. Evidence for warming is also observed in seasonal changes across many areas, including earlier springs, longer frost-free periods, longer growing seasons, and shifts in natural habitats and in migratory patterns of birds and insects.

 

[Foxfyre]

Lies are all they have.

Why would we lie about this? What reason would ordinary people have to lie about climate change? Why would scientists lie about this? They're not the guys making the money selling fossil fuels. That would be the oil companies, big government and heavy industry - the big three.

Conservatives politicians lie, and the corporations lie and people like you never stop to question their lies because you want to believe them.

Just ask yourself who has the most to gain financially, and those are the guys who are usually lying. Liberals have nothing to gain her. The status quo does. That's how you know who's lying.

Why would the fossil industry lie? Because you are going to save the world by not using energy, really? How much cooler will it be if we throw a giant "carbon" tax onto your electric bill? Who has become famously wealthy jetting around in his private jet, made famous by lying and scaring people like YOU. Al Gore has been shown to be the liar but in true liberal fashion you accuse others of what your side does. Why would the global warmest lie? Because they are so invested in the BS that they can't back out. They make their money spreading the manure. THAT is the only way the GW fearist make money. The utility companies make their money selling a product that YOU use. If you don't like what they do then shut your computer off and sit in the cold and dark. At least then you would be somewhat consistant, until then you rants are just plain BS.

Warmth brings life, cold brings death.

Trust me the oil companies are making out like bandits with green energy regulations in effect. They can price their gasoline at twice what it is worth because they can't make as much of it due to all the weird formulations that the environmetalist force them to use and the useless additives that they are required to put in it. And billions of dollars in green energy grants and other incentives are going to the oil companies to make biofuels and such as that. The oil companies have zero interest in combating global warming or anti global warming. And I know of no oil companies who are funding research on global warming--why would they? They make money if it doesn't exist. They make money if it does.

Oil companies do provide some grant monies to research organizations to study stuff but it is unlikely the oil companies are directly funding studies on global warming.

Meanwhile those scientists who are receiving huge grants from governments and/or environmental groups have every reason to come up with a verdict of global warming, most especially AGW, because once they pronounce their opinion that it isn't a problem, that river of money quickly dries up.

 

[Dragonlady]

Meanwhile those scientists who are receiving huge grants from governments and/or environmental groups have every reason to come up with a verdict of global warming, most especially AGW, because once they pronounce their opinion that it isn't a problem, that river of money quickly dries up.

No they don't. They're not keeping the money, they're spending it doing the research - doing studies, gathering data and doing tests on it. Research science pays next to no money, compared to say Oil Company Executive. We had neighbours who were research doctors - both of them. They lived in a modest townhouse. They made decent money but it was peanuts to what they could have made doing almost anything else with their degrees.

The river of money on climate research won't dry up even if global warming is disproved, because there is a lot we need to know about how we affect the earth's climate.

Again, the guys who are resisting the notion of climate change, are all those who stand to lose money or who will have to spend money to curb emissions. There is the potential to make a lot of money in new technologies if the US starts researching now, otherwise Americans will fall behind and the Germans, Japanese and other first world nations who DO take climate change seriously, will benefit.

 

[Saigon]

Foxfyre -

I'm amazed people are STILL trotting out this line about grant money - I can't imagine how many times I have established on this board that it is IMPOSSSIBLE to induce particular research results at most universities. Univesities are funded in such a way that funding is not linked to any particular research project precisely because of the potential for fraud.

What you are claiming here is patent nonsense.

Oil companies do provide some grant monies to research organizations to study stuff but it is unlikely the oil companies are directly funding studies on global warming.

Oil companies have generally bought reseach from universities an research units - so you can be fairly damn sure that before they admitted that oil is a bit part of the problem they required a very high level of scientific certainity.

It's worth sitting an thinking this point through, because at the time even oil companies admitted that climate change was real, there really wasn't much reason left for anyone else to deny it.

 

[westwall]

Meanwhile those scientists who are receiving huge grants from governments and/or environmental groups have every reason to come up with a verdict of global warming, most especially AGW, because once they pronounce their opinion that it isn't a problem, that river of money quickly dries up.

No they don't. They're not keeping the money, they're spending it doing the research - doing studies, gathering data and doing tests on it. Research science pays next to no money, compared to say Oil Company Executive. We had neighbours who were research doctors - both of them. They lived in a modest townhouse. They made decent money but it was peanuts to what they could have made doing almost anything else with their degrees.

The river of money on climate research won't dry up even if global warming is disproved, because there is a lot we need to know about how we affect the earth's climate.

Again, the guys who are resisting the notion of climate change, are all those who stand to lose money or who will have to spend money to curb emissions. There is the potential to make a lot of money in new technologies if the US starts researching now, otherwise Americans will fall behind and the Germans, Japanese and other first world nations who DO take climate change seriously, will benefit.

Oh please. They've received 100 BILLION dollars and have NOTHING to show for it other than if the world spends 76 TRILLION dollars we can lower the global temperature by one degree....maybe.

That's the biggest load of crapola I've ever heard and you anti science hacks suck it up at every opportunity.

 

[westwall]

Foxfyre -

I'm amazed people are STILL trotting out this line about grant money - I can't imagine how many times I have established on this board that it is IMPOSSSIBLE to induce particular research results at most universities. Univesities are funded in such a way that funding is not linked to any particular research project precisely because of the potential for fraud.

What you are claiming here is patent nonsense.

Oil companies do provide some grant monies to research organizations to study stuff but it is unlikely the oil companies are directly funding studies on global warming.

Oil companies have generally bought reseach from universities an research units - so you can be fairly damn sure that before they admitted that oil is a bit part of the problem they required a very high level of scientific certainity.

It's worth sitting an thinking this point through, because at the time even oil companies admitted that climate change was real, there really wasn't much reason left for anyone else to deny it.

So...tell us journalist ole boy, what has that 100 billion done for us? Who got it? How was it spent? Who provided that 100 billion? These are all easy questions for a supposed journalist to research, so have at it.

Your second assertion is laughable, they get money for doing nothing. That is the best possible return on investment for the share holders. My gosh but you're absolutely clueless how business works as well.

 

[Saigon]

and have NOTHING to show for it

Well, actually there are probably a thiusand excellent pieces of research out there which cover every aspect of climate change from rising ocean levels to glacial melt, from drought patterns to Arctic ice melt. This is impeccable, peer-reviewed, published science that is accepted by every major scientific organisation on earth.

What you mean is that the scientists have produced NOTHING which backs up the claims made by the extreme right wing.

And yes, Westwall, the questions you ask are all easy to answer. So easy to answer that you could answer them yourself as soon as you take your blinkers off.

 

[Unkotare]

Well, actually there are probably a thiusand [sic] excellent pieces of research out there ...

A thiusand? A thiusand?! That many?! That's almost a muliooon!

 

[Dragonlady]

I love the title of this article: If climate scientists are in it for the money, they're doing it wrong:

If climate scientists are in it for the money, they?re doing it wrong | Ars Technica

24,000 peer reviewed studies. If $100B has been spent, that's only a little over $400,000 per study, some of which involved taking researchers to Antartica to drill polar ice. That couldn't have been cheap.

Here is an article on how much money big corporate America is throwing at the Republicans and other climate change denyers:

On Climate Change, Money Trumps Common Sense | Connecting the Dots, What Matters Today | BillMoyers.com

The denial of climate changes gets a LOT more funding than the scientists do. And nearly all of that funding is funnelled to the Republicans because they deny science practically as a part of their platform.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Since there is no profit in Climate Models who do you think is supposed to pay for it? Govt shouldnt...ok so who should and why would they if theres no money to be made?

Your position assumes without merit that the Gov is benevolent, my position assumes the opposite.

I am also old enough to have seen all of this shit before.

Global Cooling
The Population Bomb
Acid Rain, yada, yada, yada.

In the 80's they told us the ocean's would be dead in 7 years...golly are you seeing a trend?

Yep, that your baggage doesnt allow you to objectively view new information...much like a wife who has been cheated on suspects her new hubby of doing the same without proof.

I keep talking about the pros and cons and no Republican wants to play that game. Because if you weigh it out...Preventing or Erring on the side of caution is a better bet than the "let the chips fall where they may" approach

 

[Saigon]

Dragonlady -

That is an excellent post, and I thank you for it.

I read a magazine article about a study on Alaska's glaciers that involved the team spending three months tramping up and down glaciers taking measurements in often appalling conditions. It sounded cold, wet and thankless. People argued, got sick and had accidents.

One of the guys mentioned at the end of the article that for his three month's work he had been paid precisely US$3,000.

In my experience, people commit to science because it is what are good at and what they are interested in - not because it is easy money.