Cash vs Climatology

This piece raises some interesting points and proved some excellent proof. Enjoy

 

Matt Taibi.. this is what happens when you bark at the church of climate change...

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/10/what-happened-to-matt-taibbi.html

Just a wonder of tolerance, inclusiveness... all the normal lies democrats demand that we accept about them... Garbage. The AGW annuity was designed by the gurus at Goldman. Matt exposed it years ago. And now liberal folks hate him for exposing their well tended cash flow scheme.... So typical of democrats.

 

This is a deep vein of corruption. An example:
BUSTED: State climate lawsuits are all about ignoring legislature to get cash stream
2020 › 03 › 11 › caught-state-climate-lawsuits-are-all-about-ignoring-legislature-to-get-cash-stream
Federal Court of Appeals with Records Proving State “Climate” Lawsuit is to Obtain “Sustainable Funding Stream” ... to provide information showing the July 2018 “climate nuisance” lawsuit filed by the State of Rhode Island

 

Of course it is. Always has been. Who on earth would actually pay a climate scientist if the panic porn simply went away?

 

When not politicized and/or perverted by money it's a valuable branch of science.

 

Potentially. All science is. But there isn't enough there to make an actual industry of it.

 

Follow the money.

All the corrupting bribe money goes to the denier side, so all of the outright fraud and garbage science comes from the denier side.

Any of the ethical scientists could double their salaries if they'd just accept the bribes and lie for the deniers.They don't. That gives them even more credibility.

Denialism is entirely based on politics. If right-wing-kook politics vanished, denialism would instantly vanish along with it, because denialism is just one of the many mandated deranged beliefs of that cult.

In stark contrast, if left-leaning poltics vanished, climate science wouldn't change a bit, for the same reason the science of gravity wouldn't change. It's actual science.

 

Exactly how much money went to the climate change activists and the industries that support them (like EVs) in the latest Inflation Reduction Act. No, that money didn't go to rational "climate deniers".

And that's just the latest tub of climate lard.

 

So... let me get your position clarified here. You're saying that the roughly $650B spent yearly, on climate research has not effect on the output of the research.... hmmm.. If you took the almost trillion dollars out of climate research, perhaps me might actually find the truth of it? Like, climate change: it has happened, it happens, and it will happen in the future?

 

How much money is in the room at your average Davos IPCC get together? How much does John Kerry pay to fly his private jet there?

You can't seriously claim there's no money in climate change.

 

That's an unhinged rant unconnected to any evidence.

 

An oldie but a goodie.
In tomorrow's WSJ - a tale of climate cash, collusion, and apparently, corruption
2018 › 01 › 11 › in-tomorrows-wsj-a-tale-of-climate-cash-collusion-and-apparently-corruption
have formed the U.S. Climate Alliance, for example, to enforce the Paris Climate Agreement despite Mr ... Climate of Unaccountability

 

Baldly false, as the climategate emails proved.

The money, status, and positions are mostly going to the anti-fossil-fuel hysteria campaigners.

Baldly false. Most people would say I am on the left, and the same is true of many climate realists.

But anti-fossil-fuel hysteria is neither climate science nor actual science.

 

How did Al Gore join the super-duper uber-rich? Oh, that's right: profiting from anti-fossil-fuel hysteria.

 

Yawn more drivel without a single trace of evidence behind it.

You also ignored Post 1 and Post 3 articles showing the Cash flow mostly going to Climate Hustlers who get rich from such as Al $$$ Gore and supports a grossly one-sided view of CO2 impact which is mathematically insignificant which is why they and YOU keep getting a beating in debates as you run mostly in screaming insulting drivel.

You will ignore post 12 too.

What is being denied?

 

Well, yeah.

The flaw in your logic is that you're assuming the opposition is as corrupt and dishonest as your own side is. That is not the case. We are not like you.

Corrupt and non-corrupt people are not randomly distributed. Your side self-selects for dishonesty and corruption, while our side casts out the corrupt. Thus, your assumption that the other side must be like your own is a bad assumption.

 

Heat. Kitchens. If you don't like getting humiliated, stop posting cult nonsense.

Post #1 was someone's weird butthurt opinion.

Post #3 ... I can't figure out what it's babbling about. I thought I was sparing you from some embarrassment by not bringing it up.

Post #12 ... a weirdass conspiracy theory from lunatic-right-wing-cranks. That is, the WSJ editorial board.

I do get it. The cult gives you all links to parrot, so you instantly obey. Without ever actually reading any of it. If you did, you'd notice that it makes no sense.

Go on. Show I'm wrong. Start by explaining to us, in your own words, what post #3 was talking about.

 

Classic projection.

You are indeed far worse, because you prioritize your CO2-controls-temperature narrative over the truth, and you have political power.

Like Lyin' Michael Mann, Al Gore, and Joe Biden...?

The climategate emails proved the anti-fossil-fuel side is completely dishonest and corrupt.

As they say in Japan, "It's mirror time!"

 

LOL

You post nothing but drivel nothing about the CONTENTS of the posts and nothing offered for meaningful discussion.

This means you are already wrong from the start as your post was empty and running on prejudice.

 

No, that is an absurd mischaracterization with no basis in fact.

Your refusal to know facts doesn't alter them, sorry.

No rational adult could take seriously your claim that the WSJ editorial board consists of "lunatic right-wing cranks." They may prioritize large financial interests over journalistic integrity, but they are indisputably quite rational and credible.

No, all of those claims are absurd, infantile, and disingenuous garbage, as anyone who actually does read -- and think -- can confirm for themselves.

It was talking about state governments trying to get money by paying off phony climate scientists to legitimize phony climate lawsuits based on phony climate science.

 

I asked you to summarize one of your links, to demonstrate you actually read it and understood it.

In return, I got the usual screaming meltdown.

I thank you for so convincingly proving my point, which is that you're a cut-and-paste propaganda parrot who doesn't even read the pieces he links to.

 

So why don't _you_ summarize it for us, in your own words.

You can run now as well. Don't worry, you always run, everyone expects you to run, so you won't be disappointing anyone.

 

It's describing how science can be corrupted by the same sorts of biased incentive structures that corrupt other fields of endeavor. We've seen it most egregiously in economics: modern mainstream neoclassical economics is an even bigger scientific hoax than CO2-centered climatology.

You don't know me very well, do you?

 

No because YOU denigrated them without evidence that you read them or understood it zero quotes and zero cogent analysis translates to nothing.

This was your response:

"Heat. Kitchens. If you don't like getting humiliated, stop posting cult nonsense.

Post #1 was someone's weird butthurt opinion.

Post #3 ... I can't figure out what it's babbling about. I thought I was sparing you from some embarrassment by not bringing it up.

Post #12 ... a weirdass conspiracy theory from lunatic-right-wing-cranks. That is, the WSJ editorial board.

I do get it. The cult gives you all links to parrot, so you instantly obey. Without ever actually reading any of it. If you did, you'd notice that it makes no sense.

Go on. Show I'm wrong. Start by explaining to us, in your own words, what post #3 was talking about."

===

Which is WHY I replied to this way to your ranting:

Since you still say nothing of details there is nothing for me to respond to thus, I just wonder at your vivid inability to make an argument.

You need to do better......

 

How much of that money went to scientists outside of America (don’t be surprised there are quite a lot) and how much EV money does the poor undergrad student freezing his pride in Antarctica get?

Yes “follow the money bu so far all the denialist do is yell Money! Scientists! And there is never any real connecting dots