How can anyone argue that scientists are NOT perpetrating a global warming hoax for the money?

Question

How can anyone argue that scientists are NOT perpetrating a global warming hoax for the money?

Answer 1

There's an entire industry comprised exclusively of scientists, dedicated to testing and analyzing samples for governmental compliance.  If any of the compounds they measure where to be declassified as a pollutant worth monitoring, entire companies could be shut down overnight.  It's ALL about the money.

Edit (Tuba):  Whipping out a parent or teacher on dingaling night would CERTAINLY draw attention!  See, it DOES work the other way around.

Answer 2

Because they're obviously not.

Answer 3

EXACTLY!  When carbon credits come into existence, where Al Gore buys them FROM HIMSELF.  It is money driven.  

It is a hoax to get people to buy more expensive light bulbs, cars, make expensive renovations on their homes and in their lives.

It is purely money driven, and it's ...despicable.

Answer 4

The elitists have a vested interest in it.

Many dissenting scientists in the climate field are propagandized as "flat earth" naysayers (Al Gore's own words).

When in fact in my view with any "true" science debate is normal and a very healthy part of science. In my view the Global Warming Alarmists come off more as religionists then scientists.

For me it is a matter of conscience, debate is healthy and normal, Al Gore and his ilk refuse to debate peers, because of their lack of substantive data supporting their "THEORY".

It is a THEORY, not a fact, 1 degree of global temperature variation from 1940-1998 does not prove anything.. Solar activity has increased temperature on inner and out planets in the same time period as one piece of evidence that the anthropomorphic cause of climate change is a bogus wet dream for Al Gore. That leads me to believe we need to look at ulterior motives, ,he is creating the biggest Con Game since the Social Security System. Those who are at the top of the pyramid will garner the largest bankrolls.

I believe fully it is more about the money than anything else. The fact is that the emotional hook is in and being set. Many people have sucked the bait into the gullet, while others of us remain free of the brainwashed trash.

Don't bite, be a critic and do your own research.

Google Heartland Institute, Junk Science, Patrick Michaels, Steve Milloy and delve deeper. Science is about discovery, critique, desent, and decision not about propaganda.

Answer 5

you are 100% correct.  Each day more scientist are backing away from the hoax.

Look who makes money on the hoax?  Al Gump sure made millions.  He should have just invented the internet again

Answer 6

Pretty simple.  The vast majority of scientists who get no money for global warming say that's it real, and mostly caused by us.

Answer 7

While I agree 100% with your comment about the perpetrating of this hoax for monetary gain, the fact that you are giving them the credit of calling them scientists does bother me!

The people responsible for perpetrating and perpetuating this hoax are NOT scientists.

This however does not stop them from claiming to be scientists.

True scientists stick to rigid scientific guidelines and do not "pick and choose" the data that is being analyzed.

True science does not allow a scientist to just ignore data which happens to be inconvenient for their research, nor does it allow them to exaggerate or distort the know facts!

Science in other words, can not lie!

So calling these people scientists, is not only giving"credit where it is not deserved", but also is demeaning to the whole scientific community in general.(my opinion).



I know I am going to receive  at least two "thumbs down" by our proud "Top Contributors", but I am not out to win some sort of strange popularity contest anyway!

I am sure that the true scientists would love to have a debate on this issue, but the media and moronic politicians will not let that happen.

Answer 8

Why would anyone argue that?  Saying that they are perpetrating a global warming hoax for the money is attention seeking behavior, like whipping out your dingaling on Parent Teacher night.  It doesn't work the other way.  Arguing that scientists are NOT perpetrating a global warming hoax for the money wouldn't get anyones attention because most people already know it.  I suspect most of the denierama also know it, they just have something wrong with them that makes them behave in inappropriate ways.

Answer 9

Sure it's for the money.  Watch Ben Stein's movie 'Expelled'.  It shows good scientist who lost their job and were blacklisted because they chose to freely express their ideas with others.

There is a wall to keep ideas out of the debate.  How many times do we hear that the "debate is over"?  In other words, there is no free speech.

Look at the famed scientist Dr. Bill Gray.  He no longer receives funding to do his research.  He says that if he just followed the crowd, he could get all the funding he desired.

Scientist are people too.  They have student loans, mortgages, and kids to put through college.  Imagine being threatened to be fired and blacklisted knowing you will never work in this field again?  That's powerful motivation to join the "consensus" isn't it?

Answer 10

follow the money trail and the power trail!

the UN, federal gov't, even state gov'ts are using the unproven theory of man-made global warming to tax and to force restrictions upon the citizens.

the climate may be changing, maybe even warming, but mankind/humanity has nothing to do with it.

there was a greater increase in the temperature of the world in the 1800's to the early 1900's than there has been between the early 1900's and the 2000's. This contradicts the concept that increased CO2 causes increased temperatures. The global production of CO2 skyrocketed in the 1920's compared to any previous century, but the temp has not increased, actually it decreased for the better part of the 1900's and currently is not up to previous high levels (the range for the change is less than 2 degrees C...miniscule! and hardly noticable.

the data that appears to show 'global warming' is not the most accurate data available. It is skewed in a few ways.

#1 it is gathered using land based thermometers. (warming would occur in the atmosphere 1st and satellite measurements of atmospheric temperatures show no statistically significant changes since the satellites have been in orbit (the 1980s) --the earth's land surface is only about 25% of the entire surface area of the earth);

#2 the land based thermometers used are almost entirely located at airports. (when the thermometers were placed, the airports were generally located some distance from the city centers, as time has passed the cities have grown outward and often around the airports. cities retain heat due to all the dense surfaces, large amounts of surface areas exposed to the sun, and limited air direction movement (as compared to rural areas). Or simply put the way we use land around the thermometers had changed in a way that increases the local temperature and thus does not provide an accurate climatological temperature.);

#3 the data is often cropped at the beginning and end in order to show people the 'hockey stick' progression, but if they showed all the data, you would be able to see a wide fluctuation before the start of the 'stick' and a drop where they would have you believe the 'stick' is continuing to grow upward.)

#4 the air today is cleaner than it was in 1970, despite the fear and scare tactics used by the 'eco-friendly' crowd. (airborne lead has decreased by 93%, CO by 50%, Ground level ozone by 25%, sulfer oxides by 70%)

#5 computer models (GCMs) are often used to support predictions of Global Warming, BUT these models, when given the actual data from the past 25 years, cannot accurately predict the climate for the next year (ie: if we entered the data for 1970-1995 the model would provide wildly inaccurate data for 1996. study done by International Journal of Climatology Dec 2007 issue) Both the current and past president of the American Association of State Climatologists have made statements denigrating the accuracy and usefulness of current GCMs)

From January 2004 through February 2007 there were 528 papers published on climate change. There were 7% that explicitly endorsed humanity as the cause of global warming, there were 6% that explicitly denied humanity as a cause, 48% remained entirely neutral in their findings, the remainder did not address humanity at all in their conclusions/summary, and out of the original 528 papers only 1 made any reference to 'catastrophic' climate change being possible.

The UN Global Warming/Climate Change 2007 IPCC statement has been panned by professionals (ie: Dr. Pielke Director of Environmental Studies at University of Colorado, Dr. Gray Professor of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University, Dr Lindzen Professor of Meteorology at MIT - all of these schools require individual to be doing original research into their areas of professorship in order to remain on staff) as being untrue, politically motivated, containing errors, using data selectively, and not based on observational evidence.

After all of the above, i do believe that we need to take care of our planet, through using efficient means of energy production (nuclear currently leads the way), by recycling (individuals recycling really does not make much of a difference, but business' recycling can make a HUGE difference...the waste created in 1 small to medium business in a single day is more than a family of 5 will create in a month), planting trees/flowers/etc to beautify the scenery as well as for the environmental benefits, consuming home-grown produce (saves transportation costs x3 -from farm to distrib, from distrib to store, from store to home) and many other 'common' sense and not overly invasive lifestyle changes.

Answer 11

Americanfreeman - which scientists are backing away from GW? Why don't you show us!

You people are really deep in the rabbit hole! Conspiracy here, conspiracy there, conspiracy everywhere. The liberals are out to get all your money to give to the UN to fight the coming alien invasion. Hide, Hide! Never mind the oil companies are taking your money already. I'm sure I could google a therapist for you guys, if you like.

I'm not even going to go after the fake doctor. It's too easy.

Answer 12

Geez, it's the other way around.

Answer 13

The one group that stand the most to lose in dollar terms from fighting global warming is the fossil fuel industry. If serious moves are made the coal and oil industries will lose TRILLIONS.

It's absurd to say pro-AGW scientist are perpetuating a hoax, and here's an example why.

Say there's a very large oil company (there are quite a few VERY large oil companies), and its directors are getting very worried about that company's future because of proposed AGW strategies like carbon taxes. That particular company could go two ways.

a) It could either produce an open invitation for all climate change scientists to disprove the AGW theory. And pay them more than the government grants many now rely on (sure that might cost a lot of money, but nothing like the amount they're likely to lose).

b) Or it could secretly fund skeptical lobby groups and think tanks to confuse people and delay action.

If they went with option A, and if they came up with some really compelling evidence to show that we really aren't to blame, and if that evidence was then peer reviewed and showed to be watertight - The involved scientists AND the company itself would be literally heroes and save them (and the world) lots of money.

But they don't do that option. The fossil fuel industry has been collectively shown to repeatedly go for option B. I don't know about you, but I strongly suspect those companies have already done enough of their own research to know AGW will never be proven as anything but true and very serious.