Ha ha ha ha ha ha !!
"McIntyre" rambling drool from an oil and mining company hack, yeah, that'll be "unbiased"... and shamelessly propagated by a Denierbot of a mindless blogger Denier who sucks the wrong end of the Hockey-stick.
Don't you people ever get tired of happy-clapping for your totally debunked shills, all the same, and all utterly faulty ?
Luckily, because we still live in societies where Reality isn't yet banned or owned by your masters, you can be easily debunked. Like your happy-clapping blogger was.
"Finally, there’s the issue of funding. Your “Climate Money” article (which had very little to do with climate, incidentally) … I’m sorry, but this is where things go completely off the rails. Are you perhaps suggesting that the banks were considering an ETS when Hansen released his seminal 1981 paper? It’s a little difficult to see a link! (and if you’ll excuse me for saying it, the lag of interest in carbon trading behind AGW research is far more meaningful than the lag of [CO2] behind temperature in the ice cores!) It’s also a little odd in that most climate scientists aren’t pushing a cap-and-trade scheme (since it’s wide open to abuse.)
Likewise, considering that plenty of research funds were allocated to climate science by the anti-AGW Bush administration, it’s a little hard to see a link between grants and some grand government agenda. (The reason, of course, is that grant funding is not (yet) controlled by the government of the day, but by panels of scientists. Which is just as well for my own research, since it wouldn’t interest the government one bit!) If government ideology was really behind the climate science funding, you’d think those governments would have been a little more prone to action over the last ten years! And as for climate scientists having “whole PR departments” …!! I’m sorry, but this isn’t being sceptical, this is being paranoid.
If you were only capable of doing just some simple research, instead of hanging off every sly, spun word in the vacuous emptiness of the Denierosphere.
Here, the happy-clappers.
"Sources: Loehle 2007, Haung and Pollack 1997
, See co2science.org for all the other peer reviewed studies to go with every orange dot on the map. McIntyre & McKitrick 2003
, and update
, Mann et al 1998, Briffa 2006, read McIntyre at climateaudit.com, see “ClimateGate”, and Monckton “What Hockey Stick”
(Science and Public Policy Institute paper)"
Uh oh. Shillville University, Morontopian Climate Denial Study Department, proudly bought to you by Exxon, "Oils well for a hockey-stick profit graph !"
Huang and Pollack corrected their errors, but the shills forget this.
Co2 Science.org. Can you say "Exxon" ?
ExxonSecrets Factsheet: Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
As for the other shills....well, say "Exxon" again.
Steve McIntyre - SourceWatch
Craig Loehle - SourceWatch
Christopher Monckton - SourceWatch
Ha ha ha ha ha !! Good lord.
You trot like a good sheep, Nero, behind these sinister, spinning people.
Heartland Institute - SourceWatch