Declaring climate change to be “nonsense” in light of scientific evidence seems to support the success of the Koch brothers’ disinformation campaign, and the incorrect hyphenation of the word seems symptomatic of the more generalized information deficit that, frankly, characterizes all your other posts on the subject.
Do you even read threads when you post? I explicitly stated I had no criticism of the UNCF taking money from the Koch brothers. Your entire post is a giant red herring.
Wait…(AGW) denialism is anti science rather than an alternate opinion, however ignorant?
Without the opportunity to challenge prevailing thought, wouldn’t we still be teaching epicycles?
Yes. It requires dismissing rather than embracing data, in a thought process driven by the desired result. If you think science is a matter of opinion, that is a statement of ignorance in itself.
We’d still be pretending there isn’t a problem, for one thing. 
Mr. Rodgers had critics too. Is there anyone who doesn’t have critics? If people decry the ethics of big business it’s probably because they don’t have a lot of experience with small businesses, that’s what my experiences have shown me. And the Koch brothers criticism isn’t particularly strong.
If the friends of the IPCC want to change the status quo, then it’s up to them to provide the evidence that their theory is sound. Blaming others because the IPCC can’t provide a convincing argument is silly.
No Koch money for you. 
Already done, amply. Horse, water.
They’ve done that. Maybe you can guess why scientists see this issue one way and the public sees it another.
But not convincingly.
The clean air and clean water campaigns gained support as time went on. Evidence was provided that convinced the public that something had to be done. Convincing evidence. And the public responded. In spite of any efforts to curtail new regulations.
Global warming zealotry was gaining support and then lost it’s support. People can and will provide an opposing viewpoint no matter how often or loudly the AGW zealots object. It’s still up to the friends of the IPCC to provide convincing evidence that their theory is correct.
This was supposed to be an argument against money corrupting the political process, wasn’t it? You seem to providing some good evidence it’s done just that.
All scientists or just those who make their living promoting global warming?
The global warming zealots have made too many mistakes over the last 25 years for the public to simply accept the consensus or the science is settled mantra. They’ll have to provide a MORE convincing case than they have.
This was supposed to be about the UNCF taking Koch money. Yes, the UNCF should take the Koch bros offer.
Pretty much all scientists who study the subject. Let’s all take a moment to laugh at doorhinge’s idea that untrustworthy scientists make their living “promoting” this stuff, so we can obviously trust science backed by petroleum magnates because it’s not like they have a profit motive.
This is not accurate at all, this was pointed at before:
As it turned out it was the contrarians the ones who got it wrong, but projection is a property of the contrarians, it seems that they want to claim with no good support at all that the experts are just as wrong as the contrarians where you get your information from.
And your acting like a bully is going to convince how many people that your personal view of global warming is correct?
I’ll let people make up their own minds about AGW and the evils of CO2.
And oh yeah, it is important to notice here that The Berkeley Earth team was financed in part by Koch too, they expected that Muller would find all the flaws and support people like Anthony Watts, they got another thing coming.
On the whole I would say that based on what I have seen I do think the UNCF should take the money and let the ones benefiting from this gift to some day tell the Kochs about how wrong they were by them also funding think thanks and groups that opposed what the science groups reported, after all business will get harder to do around coastal cities.
And you’re still left struggling to find public support for your views.
“90% of the world’s scientists agree AGW is real, and a serious problem. But I saw this one guy on the internet who was kind of jerky about it, so it’s probably not a real thing.”
Is that your general approach to knowledge? Because that would explain a lot.
Everyone can see that here you are not dealing with the fact that were wrong about the scientists. As for the support:
More recently, even with the mention of the possible costs the support remains at 63%, that is reaching super majority levels.
http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2014/06/02/poll-finds-broad-support-for-epa-regulations-of-co2/
Spending millions of dollars to influence the public in a way that endangers the public and enriches you? Cool. Saying on a message board that that’s bad? Bullying. This is educational!
I’d be fine with that, too, but someone is spending millions of dollars on disinformation campaigns and essentially bought off one of the two major political parties along the way. That’s not a situation that leads to well-informed decisions.