Question for Algore supporters (those who believe CO2 affects Earth climate change)

Consulting for what? For a man of his stature, that is pennies. I bet you have proof to offer me?

 

You can't seem to find anything other than alarmist blogs. The RealClimate website which purports to represent “real climate science by real climate scientists” was, in fact, organized by such notables as ClimateGate luminary and hockey stick originator Michael Mann, and lead blogger Gavin Schmidt, subordinate colleague of leading global warming alarmist / Al Gore advisor/ NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies director James Hansen. Their resident propagandist, William Connolley, was recently expelled from an administrative position with Wikipedia where he routinely edited and deleted opposing information and smeared biographical information about skeptical scientists.

 

Consulting in the interests of oil companies. That should be quite clear

Ross Gelbspan, journalist and author, wrote a 1995 article in Harper's Magazine which was critical of Lindzen and other global warming skeptics. In the article, Gelbspan reports Lindzen charged "oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; [and] his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels and a speech he wrote, entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC."[8]

A decade later Boston Globe columnist Alex Beam reported, based on an interview with Lindzen, that "he accepted $10,000 in expenses and expert witness fees from fossil- fuel types in the 1990s, and has taken none of their money since


http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_S._Lindzen#Fossil_Fuel_Interests_Funding

- - - Updated - - -

Did I offend your god? All praises to Lindzen. LOL

 

I asked Dr. Lindzen how much he has been paid by oil companies. He wrote me back that his sole income came from his job at MIT

Somebody lied about Dr. Lindzen.

This myth has forced him to now put a disclaimer on his comments.

 

I am not the one with a new religion.

 

So you are saying the billions spent now by government does have a negative effect!

 

He thinks some person in 1995 debunked Dr. Lindzen

Funny how it was Dr. Linzen in charge of the 2003 report.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen

 

He also thinks that having expenses paid to travel to give a speech somehow taints the science. If that is the case, nothing can be believed out of any government officials mouths when they travel to give a speech.

 

Dr, Lindzen was long on only one payroll. That from MIT.

Back in 1966, I hired for 3 days, a Ph.D. who specialized in Oil well problems. His fees then were $800 per day, plus travel and lodging expenses.

We got backed into the corner on a BART job and needed a qualified third party expert.

Were Dr. Lindzen to be paid consulting fees, it would cost far more than $2500 per day.

Notice the article that the Dr. Lindzen guy posted came with no sources, no proof of said payments to Lindzen?

 

There is never any proof, like the witch hunt against Soon. Dig in and you find the alarmist rants about 'big oil' are not even based on fact.

 

You asked him???? Are you kidding??? has it ever occurred to you that he might be lying? LOL

- - - Updated - - -

Yes we must trust Lindzen....but not NASA, NOAA, IPCC....etc. LOL

 

You mean government with an agenda?

 

Oil companies on the other hand are only about selfless sacrifice to others. LOL

 

And of course politicians are only about selfless sacrifice to others (money). LOL

 

The denier conspiracy theories keep getting more all-encompassing. It would be shorter list if they'd just tell us who _wasn't_ part of the VastSecretGlobalSocialistPlot directed against them.

Whatever. Cults are like that. It's good to be on the rational side. We don't have cult leaders ordering us to parrot reality-defying conspiracy theories. All we have to do to "win" is point at reality.

 

Sorry, but you insist on using terms like conspiracy and cultists while I would rather stick to the science, which if you pay attention, is far from settled.

 

Lindzen was one of the paid shills who testified on behalf Peabody Coal in the recent Minnesota case, which focused on what a carbon tax should be.

They were rebutted by Andrew Dessler and John Abraham, who did a stellar job, being that the judge rejected all of the denier arguments.

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...ian-scientist-witnesses-lose-their-court-case
---
22. The Administrative Law Judge concludes that Peabody failed to demonstrate that an equilibrium climate sensitivity of 1 or 1.5°C is correct.

23. The Administrative Law Judge concludes that the climate sensitivity is reasonably considered to be in the 2-4.5°C range.
---

That's got to sting the deniers, seeing 3 of their heroes, who got paid big to testify, (Happer, Lindzen and Spencer, only Curry was missing) being trounced in court by unpaid volunteer scientists. It seems that fossil fuel money can't buy a victory in court. While it's not a "scientific" victory, it is a legal victory, and it's a model on how to smack down denier "experts" if they try the same scams again.

 

Well, should I base what he e mailed me to how you operate?

Why not trust Dr. Lindzen? You expect to be trusted.

 

First, the state of Minnesota did a study and concluded the cost for a unfair tax is .44 c to I think it says $4.50 per ton

Who gets the tax? You know very well it never would reach the so called victims.

Actually, one of the 3 witnesses was alleged to receive some costs that defray the transport and other costs to testify. Lindzen and the other guy got nothing. In typical dishonest reporting, your report site never mentioned Lindzen got nothing.

Anyway, trying desperately to make a fuss over nothing, the alarmists are up and at it again. They do not do this for science.They have politics in mind.

 

Why do you suppose the Feds treat cancer research entirely different than you guys treat climate?

Admit it, politics is your game.

 

Talk about red herrings... How is it that any discussion of evolution evokes belligerent babbling about the Holy Bible, instead of the *science* you leftists always pretend to revere and express? How does that selectivity of yours work out?

Nor do you people EVER "politely" do anything. Your claim to make the rules for who forfeits and who "wins" is simply more of your wordplay, at which you Leftists excel.

 

The judge was convinced that the models are right and the real world is wrong. That decision was not based on science but on speculation.

And what will be the effect of this MN carbon tax on the global temperature in the year 2100 ?? Was that ever presented by those advocating the tax ??

Fortunately not all public officials are idiots. The new post Brexit PM, Theresa May, in one of her first acts abolished the UK Dept of Energy and Climate Change. Obama might want to consult with her.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/07...-the-department-of-energy-and-climate-change/