Scientist Confesses: "Global Warming a $22 Billion Scam"

From "MONEY NEWS".

"I urge you to click the button below and make a small contribution of $5 or more today.

We’ll rush you a free Cold Truth Initiative Introductory Packet that includes John’s book Dark Winter along with The Lost Video Interview, The Dark Winter Investment Guide, The Dark Winter Survival Guide, and a three-month subscription to my Resolute Wealth Letter."

So somebody at least is looking to make money from the ending of the scam.

Dec 31, 2014 at 12:48 AM Entropic man: "Lots of sceptics make money publishing bullshit."

What Difference A Day Made...

Jan 1, 2015 at 12:40 AM Entropic man: "... it would be hard to make a living writing sceptic propoganda, though you might make a bit on the side."

"GWPF paid Montford £3000 for his climategate report."
EM - without a reference for that, we'll have to assume that that figure is just something you made up.

But £3k to produce a document of ~60 pages seems definitely on the low side for any sort of professional.

Even if Andrew Montford produced one complete page per hour, it would be less than half the hourly rate my accountant charges. But taking a realistic view of the time involved, and assuming that it took time away from his professional work, it seems likely that the work would have *reduced* his total income. Not exactly "making money".

So if that is the best you can come up with to illustrate "Lots of sceptics make money publishing bullshit", it will have to be written off as yet another Entropic Mannerism.

Martin A
Why not ask Mr Montford what he was paid??
I got it here .
If you have evidence that he was paid more, or less, let us see it.
Jan 1, 2015 at 7:16 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

EM

"I got it here" The page you point to gives references. But not to that figure. So it has to be assumed to be somebody's guess, no different from if you had made it up yourself.

"Why not ask Mr Montford what he was paid?"
It is none of my business how much he was paid for doing something or even if he received any payment at all. Why on earth should I ask him such a question?

"If you have evidence that he was paid more, or less, let us see it." I have no idea how much, if anything at all, he was paid for something he did. Why on earth should I have any such information?

EM - it was *you* who made a statement about how much AM was paid for something. I just pointed out that was just a guess. You have not substantiated what you said. It is not up to me to produce information in place of the information you have shown you do not have.

EM - you are following a line that seems common among CAGW believers:
1. Say something like "the temperature may rise as much as nine degrees"
2. When it's pointed out that this is bollocks, to reply something like "In that case, you have to give details of how you calculate what the temperature will be", with an implication that not doing so will somehow validate the nonsense you have said.

As has been pointed out many times, if you make some rubbish statement, those pointing out it is rubbish have no obligation to produce some alternative statement stating what the reality is. This principle applies whether you are talking rubbish about future climate, or about how much somebody was paid for something.

Do you see the logic in this?

mh - yes, it's a good principle not to post things when pissed.