Hambone Posted October 8, 2011 Share Posted October 8, 2011 Thank you for posting this because it is a textbook example of an ad hominem attack - when they can't attack the science, they attack the scientist. But what I find deliciously ironic about this attack is that the denialist group ATI doesn't seem to realize that they are actually increasing Hansen's credibility. Let's look at where the money is coming from: Between $26,008 and $72,500 in honoraria for speeches - this is clear evidence that Hansen is in the top of echelon of climate scientists. Why else would organizations be paying him to address their groups? How is that underhanded? Between $150,001 and $1.1 million in prizes - The prizes are acknowledgement that Dr Hansen's research has advanced our understanding of the Earth's climate. it's recognition for outstanding research. That's why prizes for research are given. And notice how it's phrased - about a factor of seven in the high and low claims for his prize money when they could simply have added up his prizes and reported a total. Or at least a firm estimate. But it makes a better smear to inflate the upper end to over a million dollars. ATI could just as (dis)honestly have claimed that Hansen has received between $150,001 and $1.1 BILLION in prizes. Just under $60,000 in the form of in-kind income for travel to his many outside-income generating activities - Wow, stop the presses, Hansen got reimbursed for travel expenses! So what? And some of that travel was first class! Again, so what? This wasn't taxpayer funded travel, the money came from the organizations he was speaking to. If any group offers me first class tickets, I'm taking them. Just to keep the amounts in perspective - the ANNUAL salary for Nick Saban, the head football coach at the taxpayer supported University of Alabama, is $5.9 million. The top ten highest paid coaches all make over @2.5 million per year. Do you really want to claim that climatologists like Dr Hansen are in it for the money? Typical lefty rant. Hansen is the poster child for all that is wrong in science. There is no "purity" in his findings when you realize the "payoff" for supporting AGW. Nice Straw Man attempt with the inclusion of a football coach. Can you connect the dots to show me how Saban contributes to AGW? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunny and Warm Posted October 8, 2011 Author Share Posted October 8, 2011 Typical lefty rant. Hansen is the poster child for all that is wrong in science. There is no "purity" in his findings when you realize the "payoff" for supporting AGW. Nice Straw Man attempt with the inclusion of a football coach. Can you connect the dots to show me how Saban contributes to AGW? Well, he forces people to go to games in their carbon cars when they could have been home breathing into paper bags to prevent CO2 escape. Then you have the excessive physical activity taking place which expends more CO2 than usual. All-in-all, Saban probably deserves to be hit with a "Crimes against humanity" tag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted October 9, 2011 Share Posted October 9, 2011 Typical lefty rant. Hansen is the poster child for all that is wrong in science. There is no "purity" in his findings when you realize the "payoff" for supporting AGW. Nice Straw Man attempt with the inclusion of a football coach. Can you connect the dots to show me how Saban contributes to AGW? I wasn't claiming that Saban contributes to AGW, I was simply pointing out that the money Dr Hansen has received for lectures and awards is hardly newsworthy. You really need to work on your reading comprehension. How is Dr Hansen being unethical, or dishonest to talk to audiences about his research, or to receive awards for that work? By your standard every Nobel Laureate has no "purity" to his or her findings because of the payoff. Nonsense. Your post is so far from rational that you're either a troll or delusional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunny and Warm Posted October 9, 2011 Author Share Posted October 9, 2011 I wasn't claiming that Saban contributes to AGW, I was simply pointing out that the money Dr Hansen has received for lectures and awards is hardly newsworthy. You really need to work on your reading comprehension. How is Dr Hansen being unethical, or dishonest to talk to audiences about his research, or to receive awards for that work? By your standard every Nobel Laureate has no "purity" to his or her findings because of the payoff. Nonsense. Your post is so far from rational that you're either a troll or delusional. ever heard of sarcasm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hambone Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 Well, he forces people to go to games in their carbon cars when they could have been home breathing into paper bags to prevent CO2 escape. Then you have the excessive physical activity taking place which expends more CO2 than usual. All-in-all, Saban probably deserves to be hit with a "Crimes against humanity" tag. Funniest post in internet history. Find an island and start your own state controlled nirvana. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hambone Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 I wasn't claiming that Saban contributes to AGW, I was simply pointing out that the money Dr Hansen has received for lectures and awards is hardly newsworthy. You really need to work on your reading comprehension. How is Dr Hansen being unethical, or dishonest to talk to audiences about his research, or to receive awards for that work? By your standard every Nobel Laureate has no "purity" to his or her findings because of the payoff. Nonsense. Your post is so far from rational that you're either a troll or delusional. I'm saying that it is in his personal interest to support AGW... he profits handsomely by it. As do the majority of published AGW supporters... follow the money. Many here think bankers are all unethical, the same standard applies to scientists. Grants, awards, honorarium follow those who suport a politically "popular" position. I have repeatedly asked the Skivermont dude to say where he derives his/her living... never got a response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 I'm saying that it is in his personal interest to support AGW... he profits handsomely by it. As do the majority of published AGW supporters... follow the money. Many here think bankers are all unethical, the same standard applies to scientists. Grants, awards, honorarium follow those who suport a politically "popular" position. I have repeatedly asked the Skivermont dude to say where he derives his/her living... never got a response. Why do you claim that mainstream AGW is politically popular when, at least here in the US, we have a conservative Congress opposed to implementing any policy that would reduce CO2 emissions? Congress controls the climate science research budget through appropriations. Can you show us the massive increases in climatology dollars that Hansen is profiting handsome from. I agree with your advice to follow the money. If the lead article in this thread is correct Dr Hansen has made roughly one million dollars over his forty years or so of professional career. I believe the total is really lower than that but we'll use that figure for discussion. For comparison let's look at Charles Koch, who has made most of his fortune from fossil fuels. According to Forbes, Charles Koch is worth roughly 22,000 million dollars ($22 Billion). Every business day, five days a week, 52 weeks a year, Charles Koch makes more money from business as usual than Dr Hansen has made in his entire life. Which would you say is profiting more handsomely? So follow the money, and if you do so objectively you'll see who is raking it the profits. I'll give you a hint - it's not the climatologists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.