What a remarkably stunning degree of ignorance, and also an exact match for the message which is hammered home in the various media.
You seem utterly unaware of how grants fund a great deal of academic research (and the funding in the field of 'climate science' is enormous.) You also seem unaware that many professors make a good bit of their income (a majority in some cases) providing services such as being expert witnesses. This is the case with one of my relatives. There is nothing wrong with that, but there could be in some circumstances absent proper procedures including transparency.
You seem utterly unaware of how grants fund a great deal of academic research (and the funding in the field of 'climate science' is enormous.) You also seem unaware that many professors make a good bit of their income (a majority in some cases) providing services such as being expert witnesses. This is the case with one of my relatives. There is nothing wrong with that, but there could be in some circumstances absent proper procedures including transparency.
Again, I am just going to address your opening and I am going to assume that the rest of what you say is built up on the same faulty logic.
Okay, so first, just to be clear earlier when I said "my friend gets $10,000 per article" what I really meant is.... it is me. I am a professor, so you don't need to school me on how the game works. I have been in it for a long time.
Despite your delusion that the whole of academia has been bought out and all are corrupt, let me try to explain to you again how it works. ....lots of money that goes into climate science, but it will only go to the top 2-3%,,,,,,,grants come under the stipulation that their findings have to meet the donor's vision.....Almost all of the profs getting big grants also have tenure.....some professor's make a good bit being witnesses, like about 0.5%. The ones that do, can get paid quite well.....earn substantial cash is to become a consultant for private industry.....gotten rich being consultants.....the private industry in the global warming debate that would hire said profs are the oil and gas companies...... only 3% of profs are global warming deniers.
Your narrative sucks.
You remind me of Fox News. Lie as much as you can and then accuse the other side of lying. Stall as much as you can and then accuse the other side of stalling.
If you are a prof you would need to ratchet up the quality of your writing, produce logical arguments that will withstand the opposition, at least holding their own, and eliminate the stupid references to Fox News and the like.
We've heard all those before. Just for grins would you like to discuss Evil Exxon? Polar bears? Baffin bay whale bones? Senator Inhoff? Oxygen isotope level proxies? Yanoff? Miraculous metastocizing modeling by mediocre men? I'm sure you have lots of evil oil-loving targets that worry you day and night. How about Fracking? Climategate? The Scary, scary "Arctic Vortex." Upper atmospheric emission/absorption? Quantum mechanics of o-c bond? Penquin barbecues?
Meanwhile, we're sitting on a planet that has not warmed in just about 20 years. Isn't that nice? Now let's get to it. You can Gruber climate science, I will simply refute your arguments. Likely by referring you to the section of this thread where exactly what you claim has been refuted previously. Dogma does tend to the repetitive.
