So far this year, 400 scientific papers debunk climate change alarm?


Neither do live humans.

Nonsense. The “research” being done at the behest of “Earth First”, for example, is entirely dependent upon funding through “Earth First” BY government grants. There IS no “private research” that claims humans cause “global climate change” that can’t be traced back to one of these leftist organizations intent on taking the U.S. down and installing their concept of a “socialist utopia” and ALL of them receive government grants and support.


So let’s say your right because there isn’t a lot of information about funding of private climate science…

There is a presumption here that the government would stop or reject funding for a group of scientists if they came to the conclusion the global warming was a hoax, or that it exists but was just part of a natural cycle. Evidence? Zero.

Where is the evidence that the government attaches conditions to the money it gives for research? There isn’t any.

Even if that’s true and scientific research is for sale, why don’t big companies with such a huge stake in the answer to the question buy their own research? Because it’s not for sale.

I mean if scientists are “in it for the money”, I bet Exxon would pay better than any government agency if the results were favorable to the fossil fuel industry. Most scientists aren’t in it for the money.

But no, all the climate scientists on earth united in a conspiracy to lie to us over more than a century, so tight that not ONE of them will spill the story and admit they are being paid to produce a specific result, even though they’d make much MORE money for doing so and there are damned few examples of any such fraud lasting more than a few years.

Think of the potential for fame and recognition.

Imagine the story…

After a 30 year career in government-funded science, climate scientist Dr. So-and-So exposes the truth. The emails from the government agencies that funded his research telling him that he better come to the “right” conclusions or that his funding would be cut off!

What a scandal, he could write a book and make millions of dollars, ya know, because scientists are in it for the money and all

OR … The truth about climate threatens the profits of some of the worlds largest corporations.

Give me a break.


True as far as it goes, but the point is that Freud’s peers and ultimately himself rejected the objective evidence in hand (testimonies of kids who told Freud they had experienced sexual contact with adults) for the sake of what they wanted to believe/promote.


Truth and science do not threaten profits, truth and science create profits; the first to learn is the first to profit.

Lies and fake science are only profitable for those who take subsidies from the liars, that is why the only believers in the climate religion are those who are paid to believe.


Ok, but Freud isn’t science. He was born over 100 years ago in the Czech Republic. I don’t believe his ideas were ever widely embraced.

It wasn’t until Karl Popper in the early 1900’s that the empirical method that we utilized today was adopted.

I get what you’re trying to say, but you’ve cherry-picked a single instance in a field that could hardly be called “science” when the work was done.


Like I said, 100 years of a global conspiracy to misrepresent the science of climate, all for the money. All without any evidence and no one admitting it.



So you believe that Exxon-Mobil has more money to spend on this nonsense than the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT??? What have you been smoking? The government isn’t comprised of scientists. It HIRES a few now and then–most of whom come from the “global warming” crowd and are hired into the EPA, which is WHY the EPA since its inception has been so anti-fossil fuels. Despite what the left teaches, oil and gas industries DO NOT receive government subsidies. They are allowed to deduct their expenses in looking for and finding oil and gas from their tax liabilities, but then so do the TV networks deduct the LOSSES from their “news” broadcasting and the expenses of producing their “entertainment” shows from THEIR tax liabilities.

DOZENS of scientists HAVE “spilled” the truth. However they are immediately shut down and discredited by those who live off of the taxpayers and don’t want that to end. BTW, “All the climate scientists in the world” DO not participate in this hoax, and the hoax only goes back to about 1960 when Rachael Carson published that “Silent Spring” nonsense. That’s NOT “over a century.”


To be sure: Do you mean there is no final proof of human caused global warming (what might be right),
or do you say there is not one single indicator for human caused global warming?

So, when oil is used up America will collapse? I don’t think so. We will find alternative sources.

I do not defend any solutions. As csbrown28 said above, you have to tell apart
a the question if human cause global warming
b preferred political solutions regarding global warming

(a) has nothing to do with (b)!

Can be. Some environmentalist will indeed have bad intentions,
but this does not prove that there is no human caused global warming,

(a) has nothing to do with (b)!

You core argument is
(1) Green-People profit when they claim that there is global warming.
(2) So there we have the explanation for all the global warming theories.
(3) Since we have an explanation for the existence of global warming theories (environmentalists’ lobby is faking them) every other possible explanation (e.g. real global warming) is refuted and obsolete.

I would rather accept your first argument (“there’s no evidence”) if there really were no indicators but your second argument is logically invalid. You can’t say:
Just because environmentalists profit from global warming theories, all theories must be faked.

(a) does not conclusive imply (b)!


Why would Exxon need more money than the federal government to hire people to look into climate?

Here’s a video from 1958 that recognizes the dangers of CO2

(fast forward to :48 sec)

Here are several examples of papers written before 1930 where the science of the day understood the effects of CO2 buildup…

"On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air Upon the Temperature of the Ground," Svante Arrhenius, Philosophical Magazine 1896(41): 237-76 (1896).

"The greenhouse theory and planetary temperatures," Frank Very, Philosophical Magazine, 6, 16, 478.

“Coal Consumption Affecting Climate,” Rodney and Otamatea Times, Waitemata and Kaipara Gazette, August 14, 1912.

"The Temperature of the Lower Atmosphere of the Earth," E.O. Hulburt, Physical Review 38, 1876-1890 (1931).
calculated a CO2 climate sensitivity of 4°C.

This paper was written in 1856

So if the understanding of CO2’s effect is a hoax, it goes back even farther than 100 years. The first paper I found was written in 1827, it’s been almost 200 years.


BS. There was NO POSSIBLE WAY anyone in 1854 could have known “amounts of various gases (sic) of the atmosphere from sea level to about 20 km of altitude.” Hot air balloons were in existence then but NONE had ever achieved 20,000 meters in altitude…nor could they. That’s something over 65,000 FEET.


YOU’RE the one who claimed that Exxon could “outspend” the government.


The example is just to show that it can happen. People were practicing science before modern methodology came about. I’m pointing out that people can and do deny compelling evidence in favor of what they want to believe (obviously, people on the left and the right are claiming that the other is guilty of this).

The only reason it couldn’t be called “science” was because the “scientists” denied the evidence and came to a bad conclusion.

If Freud’s ideas were never widely embraced, then why his fame? It wasn’t for buffoonery, although a case could be made that it should have been.

I cited one example, yes. But I think you’ll find it today in any scientific discipline, with or without government political implications. It has nothing to do with whether or not modern scientific methodology is widely practiced or not. It has to do with human nature; and that’s timeless.


He was the first to conceptualized certain phenomeon, like the existence of the subconscious, that proved useful down the line.

It’s just, nothing he said about how said-thing operated was embraced.

As Jordan Peterson would say, psychology took the bones, but left the husk behind.


No I said;

The implication is that you believe that if a scientist earns $70k working for the government that if Exxon offered $80k you believe the government would offer more?

You obviously know NOTHING about how government employees are paid.

And yes, Exxon could easily lure scientists away from the government and pay them better than the Federal government.

The Departments that hire scientists to work on these problems have extremely restricted funding (they work on budgets). People doing that kind of work don’t earn very much relative to the kinds of schooling and the costs of that schooling they had to complete in order to understand the kinds of things they are researching.

Here is an example:

Here is the link if you think I’ve cherry-picked.,17.htm

Now you’re telling me Exxon couldn’t offer more than that? You make it sound like the funding and resources of the entire federal government are available to the organizations within the government that hire climate scientists and that the demand for them is so high, there aren’t any unemployed climate scientist sitting at home that would gladly take a job, even with Exxon.


Of course it can happen, and the process of science accounts for this. That’s why empirical observations are written down for others to test. Yes, there are times when something becomes accepted to the point where it’s taken for granted. But as I said, no one has ever made a name for themselves towing the line.

If you are right, and climate science is all bunk driven by popular belief, then every day that goes by, the potential recognition for proving the status-quo wrong increases.

There have been people who have come up with alternate theories. A few Danish scientists came up with an idea that had to do with cosmic rays “seeding” clouds. While it sounds ridiculous, it was a serious paper with empirical evidence. In the end, it was rejected as a satisfying answer to the question of climate as it lacked the explanatory power necessary to unseat currently accepted theories (something they conceded in the end), but these guys were trying to make a name for themselves and if they had been right everyone would remember them as the guys who prove climate science wrong.


When science is politicized, it should get your BS detector going.


Actually, I haven’t said that it’s all bunk. Certainly there’s plenty that is; many got caught lying about the numbers. I don’t really know what the truth is, but it’s anything but settled science, and I do firmly believe that a lot of the climate “scientists” (of a kind with Al Gore) are on the take for government money.


I think Al Gore employs the same kinds of misinformation that certain denialists do (Christopher Monckton comes to mind). People who mix truth nd exaduarion without context to lead their audiences where they want them to go, rather than making a real attempt to teach people how to understand the information in question.

Apologies if you felt I was putting words in your mouth, it was just a generalization.

I’m not denying that there have been people that have been dishonest about their findings, but I also thing there are those that have made genuine mistakes and those mistakes are perceived as lies by critics, Micheal Mann as an example.


You simply CAN’T be as ignorant as that post indicates. “Salary” has nothing whatsoever to do with it. It’s the other, material support that the government can “afford” to provide that someone like Exxon simply can’t that makes government work more attractive–particularly for someone with an agenda of their own that they want to promote. Do you think someone enters the field of “climate science” because they want to find out the TRUTH? BS. They enter the field because they have a preconceived opinion that evil capitalists are CAUSING climate problems and they want the opportunity to try and PROVE it.


Yes, because EVERYONE that wants to study anything about climate throws out everything they learned about the scientific method and start with a presumption of knowledge and spend their time trying to find evidence of what they already believe. Something that contradicts everything they were taught as students of science.

Give me a break. You’ve obviously made up your own mind about this. You think that anyone that wants to do climate science is a lemming that has no interest in making a name for themselves by challenging the status quo. Again, if all climate scientists are lying, it wouldn’t cost Exxon that much to prove it.

Nothing you’ve said is supported by evidence in the real world.