Nobel Physicist Resigns Over Global Warming (9.15.11)

[Mazarbul]

Sure YOU did not understand a single word, flat-earth blondie...

[kroggwaff]

goddamnit what a retarded blonde at the end, like...wtf? is she for real? even the guy was puzzled for a secound there, is it possible to be like that?

[t4705mb6]

"Oh my ...GAWD! Don't talk to me about science! Like, I'm sooooooo stupid!"

That's right, isn't it folks? If you are incapable of finding your own asshole using the tip of your middle finger...... you're......"cool".

Being "stupid" really suits your ....group .....humanity. (The wealthy LOVE it! They toast your idiocy!)

[pretorious700]

I guess this makes him a "denier". GW fanatics are laughable.

[michalchik]

Fair and balanced fox news just happened to miss the statement by 104 Nobel prize winners calling for urgent action on the fact of man made global warming.

[Visfen]

@michalchik It doesn't matter how many people disagree with you, what matters is if they can prove you wrong.

I don't reject AGW, but I reject that it is worth doing anything about. Have you read Copenhagen Consensus?

[michalchik]

@Visfen They have disproved him, that is why the have developed consensus statements that contradict him. Scientists don't create consensus statements without hard proof. The opinions of Bjorn Lomborg (the guy who created the copenghagen consensus) are not shared by most economists are groups of people directly concerned with the poor. I admit there are unknowns concerning the tradeoffs of remediation but Bjorn is way off on one end of estimates.

[Visfen]

@michalchik No they haven't.

Yes they do. Consensus has nothing to do with truth values.

Björn Lomberg certainly does present the economically rational argument, but again because you lack any insight whatsoever, you focus on what most people believe instead of what beliefs most people should believe.

It's not unknown that nobody dies from global warming, there's not proof that is the case, but even if we say they do, estimates are really low. The only thing cost effective is geo engineering.

[Visfen]

@michalchik I didn't notice this before: Björn is not doing the estimates. He invited nobel price winning economists. As far as policy goes you need economists, not climate scientists. And the fact is that the only thing worthwile from a humanitarian perspective is geo-engineering. The carbon tax for instance would cost 2 trillion to the US economy, delay the problem by 2 years and could instead have fed the starving world for 200 years. How does that make sense to anyone?

[michalchik]

@Visfen Go to the scholarly literature and look up the estimated costs of AGCC and its remediation. Don't rely on one persons agenda even if he has heavy hitters coming to bat for him. If geoengineering is better, great, if a carbon cap better great, if remediating the damage is better fine but the people who cause the damage better be the one paying for it. Right now they have a free ride. I am not wed to one solution, I am interested in facts and research. This video furthers stupid lies.

[Visfen]

@michalchik Which is what I've done. (ecosystem services as a whole 160trillion) You don't think alarmists have an agenda? They are just as dangerous as those very few idiots who completely deny AGCC.

How is this video a stupid lie? You have just said you actually agree with his statement. It's absurd that the APS would have a policy of not questioning a science, don't you think? Especially climate science, which there are many questions about.

Geoengineering is the only thing that makes sense

[michalchik]

Dear God, it is amazing how stupid these people are.

[USA4July1776]

Global Warming is political ideology, it is not science.

[michalchik]

@USA4July1776 Are you a scientist? Because most of what I know about climatology I got from science classes in universities and from reading Nature, Science, The proceeding of the national academy of science, and other scientific journals. Climate denial is a political ideology just like smoking doesn't cause cancer and nuclear tests don't hurt people was. You are being used by big corporations to spread doubt because they know doubt means delay and delay means money in their pockets.

[Visfen]

@michalchik I am a scientists. You're clearly not, as you don't even discuss the science, you discuss the political aspects of people who disagree with you on some parts of the truths to the nature of something (If' we're talking about Ivan here) you support the policy prescription for.

Alarmism is just as much of an ideology. When you say things as "being used by the corporations" you just come of as a complete tool. Alternative research is extensively underfunded, while alarm has gotten 100b

[michalchik]

@Visfen Ok Mr Scientist tell me what is the peak emission frequency and radiative flux of a 1200 C condensed matter black body? Oh what? You don't know how to figure that out. Well then you won't really understand radiative forcing models will you which are much tougher problems? Tell me what was the last scientific article about global warming you read?

[Visfen]

@michalchik So how much energy that comes from the sun. I would have to look it up. It's not really pertinent to anything discussed here.

I'm an engineer, and my knowledge is more in the computer models and how they work.

I have no idea which article I read last, I read a lot.

Do you know? I find it doubtful you do, since the statements preceding your last didn't in any way discuss the actual science, or why Ivan left. Do you think the evidence for AGW is incontrovertible?

[michalchik]

@Visfen Yes, in the common parlance of incontrovertible, yes. If I was talking to fellow scientists I would say no but I am am a Popperian not a logical positivist so nothing is incontrovertible not Newtonian mechanics or Maxwell's laws. The level of certainty on AGCC is around that of HIV causing Aids. You won't have the foggiest idea of how the computer models work if you can't solve a basic problem in thermodynamics. Have you read the latest IPCC report and checked the bibliography?

[Visfen]

@michalchik So then you agree with the statement. It's not incontrovertible. You think the statement was meant for the public?

Saying it is around the same as HIV causing Aids is wrong, IPCC's number is 90%.

Solve? It's a problem of measuring. How is solar radiation pertinent to this discussion or the discussion of radiative forcing or modelling of feedback mechanisms?

The fourth assessment? Yes. Have I checked the over two thousand items of bibliography? No. Why does it matter?

[michalchik]

@Visfen Look you are not even understanding the question I asked you. I would suggest you go back to the books and try and learn some thermodynamics before you feel qualified to make any assessment of the state of the science. Also I did not suggest you blindly accept the conclusions of the IPCC reports. I did not. I checked the references and used the science citation index to check for follow ups. Finally, yes the statement was for public consumption by policy makers. Ivan was an idiot.

[Visfen]

@michalchik I would suggest you look at some of the things that don't add up before you say stupid things like "we know every core detail", we don't. Climate sensitivity is not "settled science". So you're not asking me for heat radiation from the sun? Yes you were.

I think it is a good idea to spread doubt among policy makers. As the only thing that makes sense is geo-engineering and that is not a policy that is being pursued in any way. Instead it's taxation, which does more damage than good.

[michalchik]

@Visfen If you are actually an engineer you should know how to research a problem and know the difference between bullshitting an opinion and actually doing the hard work to find facts. DO IT. The research is out there. I have been looking at it for 20 years now. Be responsible. Stop reading the political opinion pieces and spin and look at the God Damn science. Every single core detail of this problem has been nailed down with hard science in mainstream journals.

[Visfen]

@michalchik Newsflash, you can't do policy suggestions without their being an element of politics to it, you need values, alternative costs and cost-benefit analysis to look at if it is a worthwhile policy.The only thing that makes sense is geo-engineering

No, the climate sensitivity has not been pinned down perfectly, the heat absorption of the oceans is not enough to discount for all the expected warming, which is why for instance NASA's expected warming with a doubling is lower than the IPCC

[michalchik]

@Visfen The heat sink values of the oceans is well understood with little uncertainty around the change in currents which can only make things worse. What is not known is how much methane will be released from clatherates and polar bogs, By core I meant the core physics. Human CO2 release is warming the planet dangerously. Done! Fact! Ivan is full of shit. We have the mechanism and we have the data and all doubts have been addressed. Exactly how much we are still working out.

[Visfen]

@michalchik Yes, and it doesn't add up with the expected doubling of warming. Just check NASA's expected warming and compare it to IPCC's 4th

That's simply not true, the tundra has been exposed and the previous estimates used in the climate models were larger than the measured methane release.

Dangerously? That is not a fact at all. Now you're making shit up. By what possibly standard is the warming dangerous?! There's no basis in science to say such as a thing as dangerous in the first place.

[michalchik]

@Visfen Increased coastal flood, increase storm activity of all types, increased heat emergencies, increased droughts and famines, increased environmental degradation and extinction. increased death toll and property damage at a minimum totaling many hundreds of billions That is what I mean by dangerous. You are right that is not a scientific term but I was working with a small amount of space.

[Visfen]

@michalchik Now you're making stuff up. None of these things have increased with global warming... the only thing we can say is that the cost of damage has increased. Which is a result of a general higher level of prosperity in the world and for instance in the US it is connected much with NFIP which subsidizes (rich) people to live in disaster-areas.

So no, it's not dangerous even by the estimates presented. Lack of cheap energy still kills more people. "Green" policy is more dangerous. DDT...

[michalchik]

@Visfen Go to NOAA look up extreme weather events. All of these things have increase already. There is no way they can not increase. These are all driven by the the energy content of the oceans and atmosphere. Please explain to me how you think adding energy to the atmosphere is not going to increase storms, droughts and heat emergencies? Then go Google coral bleaching and habitat degradation. There is NO area of the US that is not subject to natural disasters.

[Visfen]

@michalchik Alread... what are you talking about. No they haven't. You're making shit up. There's no scientific proof that weather would become more extreme or that it has. You alarmists really are as unscientific as they come.

Because storms are not a result of "energy" in the atmosphere. Maybe you should take a class in meteorology.

You envoirmentalist hippies are already creating a man made drought in California, as if it wasn't enough that you killed 20 million people by banning DDT.

[michalchik]

@Visfen Look, are you really getting your degree in engineering or are you just BSing for cred. I should not have to explain to you what when you increase energy input into a chaotic oscillator the oscillations increase in magnitude. I should not have to explain to you that the partial pressure of water goes up exponentially with temperature. I should not have to explain to you that tornadoes are driven by surface troposphere temperature gradients which increase as radiant path decreases.

[Visfen]

@michalchik First you're not increasing energy output, you're decreasing the outgoing radiation, and what is to say that in this analogy the oscillations are extreme weather events? You're making leaps and bounds that are unfounded in empirical science.

You're just pushing theory, supported by models of weather, that can't even predict something next week. Science is done by empirical testing, if you're gonna claim that there will be dangerous weather, then see if that has even happened.

[Visfen]

@michalchik You might think I'm being unfair but since you're spouting out unfounded nonsense for which there is no evidence, I think I can fairly lump you together with the rest of the hippie-idiots who don't understand the consequences of their inane support for insane policies. Policies should be founded in science, not screaming panicky morons lobbying against humans.

Death rates have been going down since the 20s from extreme weather events. The only thing that has gone up is the damage.

[michalchik]

@Visfen "Death rates have been going down since the 20s from extreme weather events. The only thing that has gone up is the damage." (FACEPALM) Seriously, just spend a second and use your brain. You can't be stupid enough to not see why you can't use this statement as evidence. I am tired of having to do all the thinking in the conversation.

[Visfen]

@michalchik If we're going to examine if something is dangerous then why not look at a period of extensive CO2-increases, heck forget the earlier period just look at the time it has gotten warmer, if we can't even see that things are getting worse then how can we possibly call it dangerous?

The statement is definitely evidence that it is not dangerous! Why would you even suggest otherwise? I am tired of explaining basic understanding of social science and policy to you.

[michalchik]

@Visfen Look you are read one guy with an extreme view in of a tiny minority and treat it as gospel. His concerns should be listened to not worshiped. You are not referring to any facts, He does not and you do not have any idea what happened during those warmer times. The transitions which were much slower than they are now were associated with mass extinctions. "Fossil Plants and Global Warming at the Triassic-Jurassic Boundary" Or "impact from the deep" "Scientific American"

[Visfen]

@michalchik One guy? Who are you suggesting that I'm listening to and treating as gospel?

That's one data-node that support your case, there have been plenty of times in history where the temperature is higher, like the medieval warm period which was great for humanity or for that matter other warmer periods that has been tremendous for life. Most life evolved in warmer periods.

We're talking about temperature differences that most people can experience in a day. It's not dangerous.

[michalchik]

@Visfen And don't pretend you are explaining social science and policy to me. You have not been even trying. All you have done is claimed that energy is vital to food production and i don't disagree. I am disputing what energy sources we should be dumping our money and research into. It is time you put down the wishful thinking and apologetic screeds and just searched the mainstream literature on the economics of food and climate change. Great stuff coming out of many universities.

[Visfen]

@michalchik True enough I haven't been trying that hard, I think these kind of things are readily apparent to anyone with a brain and the fact that you are gonna claim that something is dangerous and not even look on the impact on man is beyond absurd.

It's not like you can pick and chose. If we could, I would like inter-dimensional anti-matter-energy. We have to go by what we have, and fossil fuels are cheaper.

[Visfen]

@michalchik Green energy a hundred billion dollar subsidy industry, of course they will produce something, but it's entirely unrelated to the actual costs.

Further, I have no problem doing research on anything. I think that is great. Looking at the cost-benefit analysis that is something that does makes sense. But building physical plants or subsidizing industry simple doesn't. It's stupid. In regard to policy the global warming hysteria is more dangerous than actual global warming.

[michalchik]

@Visfen Ogh and because you are apparently too dim to understand despite being an engineer (really?) Construction and infrastructure has improved since the 1920's in terms of building codes, materials and design. BUILDINGS ARE SAFER and stronger. So you can not claim death toll indicates there is less extreme weather. Your brain is just one big exercise is confirmation bias. You must be either a libertarian or a commie too. Some knee jerk Utopian I am sure.

[Visfen]

@michalchik I didn't say it was evidence that there are less disasters, I said it is evidence that it is not more dangerous extreme weather. Further, I did point out that if you track "extreme weather" (absurd expression btw) it hasn't risen. So you have nothing to stand on in suggesting it is dangerous, that there is more extreme weather and for that matter that there will be.

You're saying I have confirmation bias? Yes, I'm libertarian, 40% of MENSA is as well, an over-representation of 50~.

[bigboss686]

@Visfen you appear to have an excellent grasp on the issue and really put that goofball in their place

[michalchik]

@Visfen So basically it is against your religion to acknowledge any fact that contradicts your faith in the magic invisible hand to fix all problems. All economic intervention is Satan's work and you will be rewarded for a simple minded adherence to the belief that big business always does what is best. I don't see a lot of point in continuing the conversation. BTW "extreme weather" is a normal meteorological phrase that appears in about 1 million scientific references on Google scholar.

[Visfen]

@michalchik All economic intervention has consequences, most of them worse. It's the simply fact that they originate from violence and force and not voluntary evaluation and cooperation. This is as simply as I can explain the kind of philosophy you are attacking. Business wont do what is always best, corporatism for instance.

Culture is a normal term in sociology, as far as defining be my guest, as far as trying to use it to explain something, you couldn't be less precise. What is your point?

[Visfen]

@michalchik There's absolutely no empirical science linking extreme weather, however you wanna define it, with warmer weather. Okay? If you wanna stick to the science, do so, don't go with ridiculous hype and alarmism because I will call you on it.

[michalchik]

@Visfen It is clear you haven't read one single scientific article on AGCC have you. You only read opinion pieces in popular liturature for layman. Do your homework and stop spouting nonsense. Google "An Introduction to Trends in Extreme Weather and Climate Events: Observations, Socioeconomic Impacts, Terrestrial Ecological Impacts, and Model Projections" and "A globally coherent fingerprint of climate

change impacts across natural systems" and "Who's Bankrolling the Climate-Change Deniers?"

[Visfen]

@michalchik Just of the bat, the Introduction-article you wanted me to read says something beyond absurd. That the record home sales are linked to weather events and not to the changes in regulatory practices of GME's. Further, there's really nothing in it that supports your claim that weather has become more extreme on an empirical basis. About what can be shown is that it has rained more extreme, which isn't even true nor has the aggregate rainfall gone up.

[michalchik]

@Visfen Look, you are just making stuff up. there were no major regulatory changes in 96-97 and you are not apparently curious enough to read past the introduction. You have concluded that AGCC will cause no damage because that would violate your faith belief that no economic activity can be harmful. If you want to dismiss Time magazine as a conspiracy rag, you can. You can't argue with someone who simply says that any fact he does not like is just an opinion.

[Visfen]

@michalchik So far as species goes, why are almost all of them living in wetlands and swamps? Because something that is admitted even in the abstract, local human action has a much larger effect. It also happens to be cheaper to do something about.

Bankrolling? So we're back to conspiracy nonsense. I wonder if you have the same criticism towards government friendly AGCC-science. I don't even deny it, I deny the extreme alarmism coming from attention whores. It's a pretty darn irrelevant field.

[michalchik]

@Visfen You dismiss it as irrelevant. A man who can't solve basic flux problem my son in highschool could. A man who never read any scientific papers or to dig into the literature except when it is corporate apologist PR. A man who thinks that every major scientific organization in the world is in some sort of conspiracy to engage in mass hysteria. There is no pro or antigovernemnt science. That is your problem you see this as a political battle. It is simply science and BS. You like the BS.

[Visfen]

@michalchik You're simply lying when you're saying that every core detail has been pinned down. That's a preposterously arrogant statement about something there is much debate about.

The "suggestion for policy makers"-part of the IPCC-rapport goes it is terrible, beyond awful. Estimated damage of global warming is a total sum of 20 trillion. The estimated cost for shifting over is 560 trillion. Not worth it.

Yes, I am getting a masters in engineering, have a bachelors in economics as well

[michalchik]

@Visfen 580 trillion?!? where the hell you getting that number from? Source please.

[Visfen]

@michalchik Pardon me, I was confusing my numbers. I'm writing about the securities market and that is the sum of the European derivatives market.

Anyway, Sterns rapport would reduce the "cost" of global warming by 12 trillion at a cost of 27 trillion dollars.

The fact is, it is not worth doing anything about. 1,2 million people die from a lack of cheap energy and the higher bound estimates of global warming are 600 000 deaths. Those are two opposite policy suggestions.

[Visfen]

@michalchik So how much energy that comes from the sun. I would have to look it up. It's not really pertinent to anything discussed here.

I'm an engineer, and my knowledge is more in the computer models and how they work.

I have no idea which article I read last, I read a lot.

Do you know? I find it doubtful you do, since the statements preceding your last didn't in any way discuss the actual science, or why Ivan left. Do you think the evidence for AGW is incontrovertible?

[Visfen]

So how much energy that comes from the sun. I would have to look it up. It's not really pertinent to anything discussed here.

I'm an engineer, and my knowledge is more in the computer models and how they work.

I have no idea which article I read last, I read a lot.

Do you know? I find it doubtful you do, since the statements preceding your last didn't in any way discuss the actual science, or why Ivan left. Do you think the evidence for AGW is incontrovertible?

[USA4July1776]

@michalchik Are you familiar with the University of East Anglia email scandal? It involved man-caused climate change advocates ostracizing any research that did not support a predetermined narrative. No scientific method here. These scientists work based on government-funded grants to prove man-caused climate change, and have therefore a motive to advance that theory.

Then there's the political control over our lives & property and the $ to be made on carbon credits from the likes of Al Gore.

[michalchik]

@USA4July1776 I am intimately familiar with it. I read the actual emails in context and know exactly what they were talking about . Are you aware that all the scientists were exonerated of all charges and that the papers that printed the original story printed retractions and apologies for misrepresenting the contents of the emails?

Google "Newspapers Retract ‘Climategate’ Claims, but Damage Still Done"

Now ask yourself why you did not know this? Could it be because you watch Fox news?

[USA4July1776]

@michalchik That you conveniently ignore the financial and political motives to exaggerate the global warming narrative is quite telling.

You expose yourself as someone who, far from being objective on this matter, is a zealous advocate for the climate warming alarmist camp.

The final Climategate report concluded that "[w]e do find that there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness, both on the part of CRU scientists and on the part of the UEA."

Oops!

[michalchik]

@USA4July1776 So they are saying the the scientists should spread their findings and data to the public. How is this misconduct or fraud at all? What you are ignoring is how incredibly tiny any financial incentive is. These scientists would simply work on a different topic if AGCC was false. They largely started on different topics but got drawn onto this one because it is huge and important Meanwhile 100 billion dollar industries are trying to crush them under mountains of BS.

[USA4July1776]

@michalchik "Fraud" is a crime, what the report is refering to is scientists falling short of adhering to the scientific method. Just like you, these scientists live in a resonating chamber of like-minded zealots who only reinforce the end result sought to each other, while ignoring or shutting down any contradicting findings.

Scientists who live off government grants to prove AGCC have a strong incentive to keep that theory alive, but keep believing your idol Al Gore, the prophet who profits.

[michalchik]

@USA4July1776 No there was no, zip, nada, zero failure to adhere to the scientific method. Where in the investigations did you get that? They were cleared of all charges

I have met two scientists working on global climate change, one was getting a stead stream of grants on hurricane thermo and the other was getting grants on atmospheric chemistry.

Both started work into AGCC because that is where there work led them. They could have easily continued or could go back to those lines of study.

[Visfen]

@michalchik The serious charges were their avoidance to adhere to the freedom of information act and defrauding tax payers of money.

For instance the "climategate"-scandal did lead to landmark rulings against the EPA's policy on CO2-emissions and in Britain the UEA, July this year, have to show their data to the public.

Now I happen to think climategate was a lot of baloney, but these are two very good rulings. For the science of it, the later is especially good.

[michalchik]

@USA4July1776 Meanwhile fraud is the chief occupation of the climate deniers. Many are the same people and same organization founded to tell you cigarette are harmless. They receive million dollars SALARIES (not research budgets" from oil companies and have adverting budgets that dwarf those of real scientists. They do no original research but just sow conclusion with catchy one liners. Google "The Denial Industry" .

[Visfen]

@michalchik Wow, that's a lot of conspiracy theory-crap. Your rhetoric about corporations and funding is beyond absurd. Do you use the same criticism against the over 100 billion high climate sensitivity proponents have gotten supporting taxes and schemes?

First of all. I don't know anyone that actually denies climate change, or for that matter that CO2 contributes to it. The interesting disputes are around how much, and for that matter, what policy suggestions are good and which other are bad.

[michalchik]

@USA4July1776 Futher the granting system is confidential and highly competitive so there is a large incentive to knock anyone down who is spewing anything less the the best scientific methods avialble. Scientists are subject to random audits, triggered audits and freedom of of information acts requests both for their funding and data. You like what big corporations tell you. There is no doubt in my mind you would have been a Tory on 7/4/76.

[USA4July1776]

@michalchik It is your lack of doubt and your fundamentalist convictions that make you less than credible in your assertions... you're like a religious zealot when it comes to global warming.

[michalchik]

@USA4July1776 Religious zealots don't base their opinion on reams of scientific studies published in peer reviewed journals. I had plenty of doubt and loads of questions and then I spent a decade reading the actual science, I have no doubt that cancer is associated with genetic mutations and the the sun ejects high energy protons. Does that certainty make me a zealot to? The simple fact is that scientists are not confused about this, only propagandized laymen are.

[USA4July1776]

@michalchik Again, you cycle arround the... how could I put it... the inconvenient truth that your beloved scientists who advance this theory of Global Warming are working at the behest of a political agenda... their funding depends on their advancement of the Global Warming agenda, and they therefore have a pecuniary motive to advance that theory. As for your "peer review," the Climategate scandal exposed the lack of scientific method in this politicized theory.

Fundamentalists have no doubt.

[1tonykirk]

Rockefeller, Gore, and their boy in the UN, Maurice Strong, haven't figured out a way to install meters on our faces for breathing "THEIR AIR" yet, so they figure we are stupid enough to believe that one of the four building blocks of life is a "dangerous gas" ,and that we will let them charge us an additional enslavement tax... this one financing global government...

Say hello to George Orwell, folks!

[hiyosilver100]

@1tonykirk Well put!

IF global warming was a fact and THEY wanted to do the right thing about it, THEY would demand that the infernal combustion engine be banned immediately and that all fossil fuels be banned from use. The I.C. engine is what is causing the pollution all over the earth! Many alternatives have existed for over 50 years to include engines that 'burn' water or vegetable oil and even cheap perfume cleanly! Whatever happened to the Mazda Rotary Engine with 3 moving parts?

[1tonykirk]

@hiyosilver100 Look up Fleischmann and Pons and GHWB's Science Advisor John Huizenga in 1986.

Repeatable, verifiable "Cold Fusion"!

[informationwarfare]

@1tonykirk hi george!

[InternetDisciple]

I thought that the left declared that there is a consensus on the global warming hoax.

Next there will be people that want us to believe that matter could somehow create itself. Oh, wait...

[InFaithThroughChrist]

@InternetDisciple I see what you did there, gentleman!

[chllr2001]

Fox news again forgets to mention that this so called "scientist" who has never collected data dealing with climate change, had received over $675,000 from 1998 to 2006 from Exxonmobil through his Heartland Institute. Silly Fox News.

[mamaschristmasbunny]

@chllr2001, Fox News, me I cannot stand them either in their silliness. Don't forget APS and their Al Gore prototypes make billions more by pushing the opinion, that Climate Change is caused by man made causes.

They make 100,000 times more money than that piddle amount that you claim the Physicist received from Exxon. What you give in amount is petty cash or maybe what the Al Gore types give to their children in allowance.

At least the Nobel Prize winning scientist has won awards, thinking.

[CorrosionX3]

@chllr2001 Be honest, tell us how much pro-global warming "scientists" have received in subsidies from taxpayers governments and from carbon-investors like Al Gore to research only one side of the argument?

[cash4medaily]

i like this reporter. smart, hot