GIGObuster:
Not worth it to reply to your ad nauseam and personal attacks, but a cite here is needed, care to show the climate scientists accused of being on the payroll of Greenpeace, the Sierra Club? And you do demonstrate monumental ignorance if you are not aware of how much the scientists and policy makers that work at the IPCC make.
DenialGate Highlights Heartland's Selective NIPCC Science
How much money, then? You accuse, but show no data.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_162-43045771/climate-denier-funding-where-exxon-left-off-coal-and-others-take-over/
Exxon pledged to quit climate change deniers several years ago. And the company has made progress. But it hasn’t stopped altogether, according to Greepeace’s documents. Exxon gave $76,106 between 2008 and 2010 for a solar variability study. Soon has pushed a theory that changes in the amount of radiation coming from the sun are to blame for rising temperatures. The oil company gave $265,000 to Soon between 2005 and 2008.
Unsurprisingly, Exxon fired back and accused Greenpeace of “peddling this discredited conspiracy theory” about its support for climate deniers, Mother Jones reported. The company maintains it stopped funding Soon’s work in 2009. So, Exxon has admitted that it was funding climate change deniers after its 2008 promise, but now wants everyone to believe that this time it really has stopped. Curious.
Meanwhile, Southern Co., the American Petroleum Institute and the Charles G. Koch Foundation have continued their financial support. Southern Co., which is new to the list of “known” funders, gave two grants. One for $110,000 in 2005 to 2006 was to study Arctic climate change, and another $120,000 in 2008-09 was for solar variability and climate change signals from temperature.
http://www.salon.com/2012/02/17/secret_papers_turn_up_heat_on_global_warming_deniers/singleton/
Other scientists, researchers and pseudo-scientists on the Heartland payroll include a former California TV weatherman, Anthony Watts, who runs an anti-climate change science blog called WUWT (Watts Up With That). Heartland budgeted him $90,000 for a “special project.”
On his blog yesterday, Watts admitted taking an unspecified sum:
Heartland simply helped me find a donor for funding a special project having to do with presenting some new NOAA surface data in a public friendly graphical form, something NOAA themselves is not doing, but should be. I approached them in the fall of 2011 asking for help, on this project not the other way around.
The Heartland budget allocates more than half a million dollars for “government relations” and another $800,000 for communications. Besides the big-budget annual climate conference, another $25,920 was budgeted for eight “Heartland Capital Events” identified as “events in state capitals for elected officials,” at $3,240 each.
As a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, Heartland is legally barred from using its tax-free income of $7.7 million to lobby for or against legislation. The fact that the group appears to be intending to do just that could transform the group’s ongoing public relations disaster into a legal problem. Heartland’s activities are no surprise to environmentalist watchdogs, but actual proof of moneys spent on lobbying activities might affect their legal status, if the IRS bothers to investigate.
Besides trying to influence public (and lawmaker) opinion on fossil fuels and climate change, Heartland works on other overtly political projects that have nothing to do with climate change. The group gave $612,000 for something called “Operation Angry Badger,” aimed at the nonscientific goal of supporting Wisconsin’s anti-union Gov. Scott Walker, who is targeted for recall by progressives.
Worried that liberal (and, in their view, overpaid) public schoolteachers are turning young minds green with impunity, Heartland planned to pay a coal industry consultant named David Wojick about $25,000 per quarter, to create a curriculum to counter global warming education in schools.
Everyone can see that you made an specific accusation of organizations doing the same with climate scientists and scientists being in their payrolls, so numbers and evidence now, or it did not happen.
GIGObuster, I’m ashamed of you.
It’s patently obvious.
A therefore B.
A. It is impossible that any scientists would believe in global warming.
B. Therefore, it must be true that they are getting paid to think that way by Greenpeace.
That’s logic. And logic is science. And science is always right.
QED