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":

Scientists begin salvaging their reputations!

Due to the importance of this, I am reprinting the entire blog post from DailyTech.com below. Now, as much as I agree with the intent of that blog post, I have to point out that the APS has not changed its overall official stance on climate change; what is true is that one forum of the APS (Forum on Physics and Society) called for a debate in its July 2008 Newsletter with this posting by the forum's editor. The arguments against AGW made by Dr. Christopher Monckton in the newsletter on climate sensitivity (how sensitive the climate is to changes in CO2) are compelling.

We could see this coming, due to the record winter (and record cool summer) of 2007-08, climate revisionism, exaggerated claims, and the fact that more and more people worldwide are saying that this is utterly stupid.

Alarmists always spew “consensus” and “IPCC” when attempting to disallow debate with people (even really smart scientists) they consider to be “non-believers.” They’re not willing to admit it yet, but there are tens-of-thousands of “denying” scientists out there, including scientists once on the IPCC (like Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT).

We’ve seen the petition of >31,000 skeptical scientists, many who ONCE BELIEVED BUT NOW HAVE TURNED AGAINST AGW as an unassailable truth. As the article says, there is a “considerable presence of skeptics.” Al Gore can no longer claim that denying scientists are “outliers,” because the outliers are now in the thousands-upon-thousands, and this number is growing. This doesn’t include the scientists who are keeping their opinions secret because they’ve witnessed some of their colleagues professionally tarred-and-feathered for questioning manmade climate change; these guys and gals have been getting the “Scarlet Letter” treatment for years. That’s all changing now.

This scam is finally being exposed for what it is—nothing but complete garbage. I feel that, apart from the fairy tale of global warming that continues alive-and-well in the media, the tide in real scientific circles is finally turning in the direction of REAL SCIENCE and TRUTH! Real scientists see that it’s BS, and they don’t want to be among the last ones left saying that an indefensible theory is fact. Look for the floodgates to open now; it’s going to be like rats fleeing a sinking ship.

There are numerous, vexing questions. Which mainstream news source (e.g., CNN, CBS, NYT, LAT, etc.) will be the first to cover a story like this one, where the reporters seriously question the validity of global warming and the “consensus”? When will Al Gore return his Nobel Prize and Oscar after being completely exposed as the fraud and charlatan that he is? When will Heidi Cullen’s climate show be cancelled? Will Dr. Hansen lose his job at NASA for wasting government resources for over twenty years? Will the POTUS candidates acknowledge reality?

Myth of Consensus Explodes: APS Opens Global Warming Debate

"Considerable presence" of skeptics

The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change and is now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human-induced global warming. The APS is also sponsoring public debate on the validity of global warming science. The leadership of the society had previously called the evidence for global warming "incontrovertible."

In a posting to the APS forum, editor Jeffrey Marque explains,"There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution."

The APS is opening its debate with the publication of a paper by Lord Monckton of Brenchley, which concludes that climate sensitivity -- the rate of temperature change a given amount of greenhouse gas will cause -- has been grossly overstated by IPCC modeling. A low sensitivity implies additional atmospheric CO2 will have little effect on global climate.

Larry Gould, Professor of Physics at the University of Hartford and Chairman of the New England Section of the APS, called Monckton's paper an "expose of the IPCC that details numerous exaggerations and "extensive errors"

In an email to DailyTech, Monckton says, "I was dismayed to discover that the IPCC's 2001 and 2007 reports did not devote chapters to the central 'climate sensitivity' question, and did not explain in proper, systematic detail the methods by which they evaluated it. When I began to investigate, it seemed that the IPCC was deliberately concealing and obscuring its method."

According to Monckton, there is substantial support for his results, "in the peer-reviewed literature, most articles on climate sensitivity conclude, as I have done, that climate sensitivity must be harmlessly low."

Monckton, who was the science advisor to Britain's Thatcher administration, says natural variability is the cause of most of the Earth's recent warming. "In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years ... Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth."

Dr. Richard Lindzen, Julian Morris debate Bill Nye, Heidi Cullen

This was on CNN two years ago, before we had the precipitous drop in the global mean temperature by 0.7 degrees this past winter, which caused alarmist scientists to invent "climate revisionism"--proclaiming that we'll have 10-20 years of cool temperatures caused by La Nina, which they say will "mask global warming." (LOL!)

Note all the images that CNN chooses to show behind the debaters: polar bears, floods, etc. Same old hysterical, fear-mongering crap - different day!

Dr. Richard Lindzen is an Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT and an "outlier" scientist (as Gore calls him for his disbelief in global warming), and Bill Nye...we'll he's "The Science Guy"--how could one question such credentials? Julian Morris is obviously one of those pesky, skeptical Britons who are making the alarmists very angry.

Watch this and remember that this was two years ago (and one year before we had the record breaking winter of 2007-08). Let's see--MIT professor or Bill Nye and Heidi Cullen? Yep, I believe the MIT professor. Remember Galileo! The maverick in science is often correct--not the "consensus."

Cullen mentions the IPCC (as all alarmists do) and "consensus," but is she aware that Dr. Lindzen was on the freakin' IPCC? Lindzen has consistently stated that the IPCC's real position on AGW has been warped by political hacks.

I used to like Bill Nye in my younger days; now I realize that he's susceptible to brainwashing and politics like everyone else. Heidi Cullen? Why didn't Larry King ask her about her desire to revoke professional credentials to all meteorologists who "deny" manmade global warming? Also, note all the images that CNN chooses to show behind the debaters: polar bears, floods, etc. Same old hysterical, fear-mongering crap! It's easy to tell from those images and Larry King's tone what CNN et al think about Dr. Lindzen and Julian Morris. It's the same story with most other media outlets, sadly.

Here are the notes from mdhenshaw's youtube page:

Richard Lindzen was on Larry King Live a few nights ago discussing Global Warming with a panel of experts that included Bill Nye the Science Guy. A TV personality and former sketch comedy member against an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT. Julian Morris and Lindzen make excellent points for which the alarmists have no answer. It's the same old song and dance, they always mention the "consensus" and the IPCC report.

Did Dr. Gray and CSU reach compromise on warming lie?

So, it sounds to me as if CSU had initially intimidated Dr. Gray, famed hurricane forecaster, for speaking his mind about the global warming lie, but it appears they've come to some behind-the-scenes agreement that requires him to keep his mouth shut about the intimidation he suffered. Is the quid pro quo that he keeps his position and continues his work?

I'm glad there are scientists like Dr. Gray, Dr. Christy, Dr. Reiter, and Dr. Lindzen out there who are brave enough to speak up about the AGW myth. Remember...Galileo was eventually silenced as well by religious authorities; now, the new religion is global warming, and its authorities are attempting to silence the few, brave voices willing to state the truth--global warming is one of the greatest scams (maybe the greatest in history) ever perpetrated on mankind; it must be the greatest in history, because it's a worldwide phenomenon of deceit, thanks to the flow of misinformation through the Internet and other electronic media venues.

Hurricane Expert Says His Global Warming Views Haven't Affected University's Support

William Gray, a professor emeritus at Colorado State, is a skeptic of man-made global warming and once said that pro-global warming scientists are "brainwashing our children." An article Monday by the Houston Chronicle that was cited by FOX News claimed that Gray's views had prompted the university to stop promoting his renowned annual North Atlantic hurricane forecasts. The Chronicle quoted a memo Gray sent the university last year accusing it of trying to stifle his views on global warming, but Gray issued a statement Tuesday saying that his status at the university hadn't changed.

Gore launches "NEW" climate campaign?

You mean Al Gore was not ALREADY on an advocacy campaign for manmade climate change?! What the heck was his dumb movie? What the heck is that boatload of hot air permeating from his oral orifice on a near weekly basis via the media spotlight? Why is the media helping him create this illusion that this “NEW” campaign is somehow different from the one we’ve been witnessing for years? I guess this "new" campaign is for those of you tired of the old one.

Why won’t Al Gore—a cult-anointed climatologist—debate some of the smartest people in climate science, like Dr. Richard Lindzen, a climate scientist from MIT and fellow AGW skeptic? I know why. Because Gore's no authority whatsoever; he would have his shorts handed to him in a real scientific debate with a real scientist, because this ain’t politics, baby, though lately it’s getting harder to discern the difference between science and politics.

We deniers (those who are RIGHT ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE) need a fiscal benefactor to help us fight this load of bull. However, everyone with money in the debate is on the profiteering side of global warming, so we’ll likely be in for a long wait. We’re just going to have to wait for Mother Nature to continue to make buffoons of these alarmists in the way that this winter season did. Hopefully, Al Gore will still be alive by the time AGW is accepted as an undeniable hoax by a greater number of people than currently present in the skeptical ranks; then maybe someone will smarten up and sue his butt like John Coleman suggests.

Wouldn't that $300M be better served towards something real, like AIDS or the homeless?

Gore Launches Ambitious Advocacy Campaign on Climate:

Former vice president Al Gore will launch a three-year, $300 million campaign Wednesday aimed at mobilizing Americans to push for aggressive reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, a move that ranks as one of the most ambitious and costly public advocacy campaigns in U.S. history.

Carbon profiteering, scientific intimidation, and U.S. history

Why is a flawed theory (that has been so thoroughly debunked that it's not funny) still so widely accepted and espoused by media and politicians alike? Follow the dollars, my friend. Dollars for research grants and dollars for carbon credits (including credits from Gore's own company--that he buys from himself) and other emerging climate technologies (such as biofuels) spell big money for everyone except you common sheep out there.
2007 EU carbon data due out April 1| Environment | Reuters:

Under the EU's carbon market, energy-intensive industry has to submit an emissions permit called an EU Allowance (EUA) for every ton of carbon dioxide emissions.

Emissions data is therefore closely watched because it shows the level of demand for such permits and so the appropriate carbon price.

Check out Dr. Richard Lindzen's (an atmospheric scientist at MIT and a DENIER) excellent piece on the subject. He's another one of those "outlier" scientists as labeled by Al Gore. Do you believe this MIT climate scientist knows more about the climate science than Al Gore? I hope so...

The Wall Street Journal Online - Extra | Climate of Fear - Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence:

The answer has much to do with misunderstanding the science of climate, plus a willingness to debase climate science into a triangle of alarmism. Ambiguous scientific statements about climate are hyped by those with a vested interest in alarm, thus raising the political stakes for policy makers who provide funds for more science research to feed more alarm to increase the political stakes. After all, who puts money into science--whether for AIDS, or space, or climate--where there is nothing really alarming? Indeed, the success of climate alarmism can be counted in the increased federal spending on climate research from a few hundred million dollars pre-1990 to $1.7 billion today. It can also be seen in heightened spending on solar, wind, hydrogen, ethanol and clean coal technologies, as well as on other energy-investment decisions.

More on profiteering below with respect to climate change and Guyana. It's easy to see why it's not going to go away easily, even with all the mounting scientific evidence and the opinions of scientists (some who were once on the IPCC); there's too much money at stake--research money for scientists and profit for politicians. When ethical scientists speak up, they're essentially shoved down by the all-powerful "consensus" because the ethical scientists are "taking food off the table."

Remember, our Founding Fathers did this sort of thing, too; they went to war to "free the colonists from evil British oppression," but they were, in reality, protecting their own personal and business interests. Profiteering under noble guises is not a new thing to America; it's almost part of America! History does repeat itself. The Boston "Massacre" and resulting outrage from the inflamed, biased media coverage in the form of Paul Revere's engraving was the major impetus behind stirring popular dissent and starting the Revolutionary War! Don't think the media doesn't still do these things! Don't think our leaders, regardless of party, are no longer elites and out for their own best interests! Your interests only become their interests when popular opinion threatens their hold on power (and thus wealth).

Investor buys Guyana forest's rain and carbon | Environment | Reuters:

LONDON (Reuters) - The British-based investment firm Canopy Capital said on Thursday it had bought a share in the rain-making potential of a chunk of Guyanan rainforest bigger than the Mediterranean island of Mallorca.

The move is a novel twist in an investor frenzy to make money from the prospect of climate change that has also seen businesses snap up permits to emit greenhouse gases and invest in low carbon-emitting technologies.

Need more proof? Here's where two countries are trying to find cheaper "wiggle room" with regard to carbon credits, but you can bet Al Gore and company aren't going to stand by and let that happen. Carbon credits that are cheap would cut into their profits!

Spain, Ireland join cheap carbon credit chase | Environment | Reuters:

That cheaper, alternative route has drawn criticism not only from environmentalists but also from carbon traders who want to make money from selling carbon offsets to countries struggling to meet their Kyoto caps.

Don't be fooled by the article below. Oil firms already wanted to explore these regions and have the technology to do so; they have been prevented by the environmentalist lobby from carrying through, however. The media wants you to fear both the "melting ice" and those evil oil companies who would "compound" the problem.

Ice shrink in Arctic sea may attract oil firms | Environment | Reuters:

Oil and gas companies are pushing north into the Barents Sea, seeking new reserves. Scientists say climate change may make the region less inhospitable and prices around $100 a barrel can justify exploration despite high costs.