OPINION:Follow the Climate Money

Brace yourselves for recession #2, only this one will have a lot more shrill whining when their donations dry up.

Good Post.

Did you know for the low, bargain sale price of $1200 you can shake Al Gore's hand at Copenhagen?

Fat Albert Handshakes For Sale - 1200 bucks

How much to kick him in the nuts?

Seems a curious case to make. It is the so-called sceptics who are always saying that responding to climate change will bankrupt the world eocnomy. Yet, in this scetpics articel, does he even mention that? Nooooo.

So, if, in fact, reposnding to climate change will break the world eocnomy, you'd think that--as this fellow puts it --"following the money" would address that issue.

But then, I guess not much more can be expected from the "Global warmingi s a pile of crap becasue Al Gore is fat" crowd.

All my peerrs and I are just saying that because we're all paid by "big oil".

hey, if you don't like science, go back to prayer.

Science is proven because it's repeatable.
"Just believe what we say" is religion.

What on earth are you talking about? Try earth people logic, so the rest of us can understand too.

Look...here's the way the argument goes from an economic standpoint. The global warming fraud is a Ponzi scheme. There's no actual, unsubsidized product being produced. You can make money in the early going, but it only works for as long as you can continue finding rubes to invest. Ultimately though everybody loses.

The way the "Al Gore is fat" argument goes is he's an icon of global warming hypocrisy. These faux green guys are getting fat while they drive up the price of food and energy for the poor, even starving the people of say Africa by refusing them cheap, functioning energy. At the same time they claim to speak for the poor, and ask the rest of us to tighten our belts, and prepare to make sacrifices.

It's got nothing to do with Al's size.
If someone offered you several million dollars a year to prove something that's essentially unprovable at this point in time, you wouldn't bust your ass trying to disguise all the faulty data you used as proof? You wouldn't be pushing your agenda despite evidence to the contrary?

You yourself may have the moral fortitude to say "no", but there are many, MANY others out there, including educated people, that would JUMP at the chance to become a multi-millionaire, even if it meant throwing their ethics out the door.

Why waste energy responding to a nonexistent entity.

Excuse me? We're not the ones who are destroying their data to prevent it from being replicated. We're not the ones persecuting scientists who stray from the non-scientific 'consensus'. We're not the ones violating the law by deliberately destroying government documents.

In sum, we're not the ones acting like common criminals trying to hide the evidence of their crimes and silencing anyone who talks.

AGW 'scientists' are naught but a bunch of extortionists in white coats running a scam to steal money from everyone.

No, I've tried earth people logic. Didn't like it. I much prefer space cadet logic.



I can't see it from the research dollars angle. First of all, head researchers like Phil Jones and whats-his-nuts at NASA get millions in research dollars every year regardless. So saying that they get millions of dollars now because of climate change doesn't tell me much. Secondly, the research funding doesn't go into the researcher's private account. He or she has to account for it. Sure they might be able to finagle some of it their way--trips to fancy conferences, yadda yadda yadda. But it's not like its theirs to do with as they please. And sure you can point to a few guys--like Jones adn Hansen--but for the great majority of researchers, I don't think you'd find that theya re driving Porsches.

When research scientists are making the kind of money that CEOs of large energy companies make, that argument might become more valid.

And finally, the argument discounts the research income for the scientists who are sceptical of AGW. They also get funding.

I think a groupthink mentality among some lead reserachers is probably more to blame than deliberate malfeasance to get more research money.




And what have you done lately for the starving people of Africa?

Al Gore is a politician, so it doesn't surprise me when he acts like one. However there is no relationship bewteen Al Gore's weight and the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Why waste energy responding to a nonexistent entity.

So, you don't think carbon dioxide radiates heat? Or you don't thihnk that the concentration of CO2 is rising? Or do you think, over the long term, that other factors will negate the heat produced by teh surplus carbon dioxide?