Scientists: Are they corruptible?

The angle of the association here to global warming is actually obvious if you think about it. I've written about it many times in this blog.

We skeptics and climate realists are told to more or less "shut up" (to shut off debate) when presenting calm, deliberate, scientific points and data that counter the pseudo-scientific basis of the global warming scam; the authority used to dismiss skeptics and turn off debate--even highly-intelligent, tenured atmospheric scientists--as outliers is based on a politically- and profit-driven "consensus."

The "consensus" is very questionable, since many once part of the consensus are abandoning their old theories, and we know of at least 31,000 scientists who are brave enough to declare AGW a huge lie.

One must ask: Can scientists have corrupt motivations, and can they internally justify their actions to the point of actually harming mankind? Dr. Ivins here apparently (and allegedly) did just that and only killed himself after it was apparent he was going to be held to account.

Now, I know alarmists will attempt to say that this is what denying, outlying, "flat-earth" scientists do, but they never think to question the authoritative basis of their own beliefs--authorities like Al Gore, Heidi Cullen, Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Prince Charles, James Hansen, Bill Nye, and the list goes on. These names are seen time-and-again in the media to offset the credentials of actual climatologists who question--quite sanely--the scientific basis of the global warming cult; climatologists such as Dr. Roy Spencer (UAH and formerly with NASA), Dr. William Gray (CSU) and Dr. Richard Lindzen (MIT) make sensical, well-thought counter-arguments to the alarmism, but the usual tactic from the contrary side is to "name call" and denigrate with PC terminology designed to close off debate to the public's awareness (words like "denier," "consensus," and "IPCC").

Anthrax scientist Bruce Ivins stood to benefit from a panic - Los Angeles Times:

Bruce E. Ivins, the government biodefense scientist linked to the deadly anthrax mailings of 2001, stood to gain financially from massive federal spending in the fear-filled aftermath of those killings, the Los Angeles Times has learned.

Ivins is listed as a co-inventor on two patents for a genetically engineered anthrax vaccine, federal records show. Separately, Ivins also is listed as a co-inventor on an application to patent an additive for various biodefense vaccines.

Dr. Spencer endures Sen. Boxer (non-PhD)

Senator Barbara Boxer (who has no scientific credentials whatsoever) challenges a leading climate scientist (formerly with NASA), AGW skeptic, and IPCC member with a political zinger and thinks that this debunks anything technical he just said? She just verified that she's a huge moron, which I already knew. This sham is so audaciously transparent!

These alarmists never debate based on scientific findings, counter-theories, fundamental climatology, or raw data such as presented in Dr. Spencer's testimony; it's always "you're in bed with big oil," "you're Rush Limbaugh's chosen climate expert," "but the consensus says...", "the IPCC says...", "you're a denier," "you're a flat-earther," or "you're an outlier." Stop name-calling and insults as your only retort to real knowledge in some lame attempt to discredit an antithetical view; to do so means you're just a zealot--arguing so that your belief isn't shaken.

Here's news for you alarmists...Roy Spencer, just like climate expert Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT, is part of the UN's IPCC, even though they disagreed with what was put in those IPCC reports that made bold, questionable proclamations about man's role in the climate. They're in that group of scientists conveniently portrayed by political hacks like Boxer, Cullen, Reid, Gore, Nye, and so on as part of the "consensus," when nothing could be further from the truth! When these "consensus" scientists stand up and scream, "I didn't say that!" the political hacks are quick to jump on them with irrelevant banter in an attempt discredit and silence them. Dr. Spencer, don't you know you're just supposed to shut up and take it? That's how alarmists work.

Many from the IPCC and "consensus" have denounced the theory that manmade CO2 drives climate change. Many more are changing their minds today and recognizing they were wrong.

Wake up before these charlatans scam you for all you're worth! Please check out Dr. Spencer's site, read, and be educated. Buy his book and learn.

Don't believe that alarmists only shout, name-call, insult, or anything else except debate based on the actual scientific knowledge? Watch this video and see for yourself (warning: ADULT LANGUAGE!). This is the sort of baloney we're up against--thoughtless minors who've been brainwashed by the media, politicians, and overzealous professors. He keeps spouting "science" throughout this diatribe, but I'm still waiting to hear his "conclusive science":

IPCC scientists reject AGW theory

I love it when former U.N. IPCC scientists denounce the Frankenstein they helped to create.

The new "inconvenient truth" that dares not say its name:

Hundreds of climate experts from around the world at the New York conference issued a "Manhattan Declaration," whose title gets right to the bottom line: Nature, not Human activity, Rules the Climate.

Among those at the gathering was former UN scientist (he quit the UN group in disgust) Dr. Paul Reiter of the Pasteur Institute in Paris. Dr. Reiter told the attendees that, "[a]s far as the science being 'settled,' I think that is an obscenity. The fact is the science is being distorted by those who are not scientists."

Added famed hurricane expert and meteorologist Dr. William Gray: "There are a lot of skeptics out there, all over the U.S. and the rest of the world. [Global warming] has been over-hyped tremendously; most of the climate change we have seen is largely natural. I think we are brainwashing our children terribly."

There are other IPCC scientists who have rejected their part in the farce. Let's take John Christy.

My Nobel Moment - WSJ.com:

I've had a lot of fun recently with my tiny (and unofficial) slice of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize awarded to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). But, though I was one of thousands of IPCC participants, I don't think I will add "0.0001 Nobel Laureate" to my resume.

The other half of the prize was awarded to former Vice President Al Gore, whose carbon footprint would stomp my neighborhood flat. But that's another story.

I'm sure the majority (but not all) of my IPCC colleagues cringe when I say this, but I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see. Rather, I see a reliance on climate models (useful but never "proof") and the coincidence that changes in carbon dioxide and global temperatures have loose similarity over time.

Al Gore's response to Dr. Christy? We deniers are "outliers" and "flat earthers." Gore thinks we need MORE propaganda to brainwash you sheep out there into believing his little fart ball called global warming.

Al Gore, Comedian: Media's Global-Warming Coverage Too Balanced | NewsBusters.org:

AL GORE: Well, he's an outlier. He no longer belongs to the IPCC, and he is way outside the scientific consensus. But Meredith, part of the challenge the news media has had in covering this story is the old habit of taking the "on the one hand, on the other hand" approach. There are still people who believe that the earth is flat. But when you're reporting on a story like the one you're covering today, where you have people all around the world, you don't take, you don't search out, for someone who still believes the earth is flat and give them equal time. And the reason the IPCC was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, the thousands of scientists who make up that group, have for almost twenty years now created a very strong scientific consensus, that is as strong a consensus as you'll ever see in science, that the climate crisis is real, human beings are responsible for it, the results will be very bad for the United States and for the entire world community, all human beings, unless we do something about it. And there is still time to solve it.