But then when you have science, people insist on claiming that scientists are doing it for the big bucks or they are accused of following band-wagons because they agree on some data, which are just silly junk claims. Sorry, but those arguments tend to invalidate the challenges.
Isn't the claim that
'certain' scientists are doing it for the money, one of the arguments used by the alarmist camp to discredit the views of scientists in the skeptical camp?
Geologists, such as the Australian Ian Plimer who wrote a book on the subject of climate change from a geological perspective, and concluded that human CO2 emissions alone would have a very minor and insignificant effect on climate, was heavily criticised by the alarmist camp because of his association with various mining projects which might have included oil and coal.
Scientists working in the Tobacco industries are notorious for their views which have attempted to minimize the harmful effects of smoking.
Why is it so difficult to understand that there is usually a pressure on employees in any industry or organization to conform to the general ethos of that organisation?
Any scientist employed by the tobacco industry, years ago when the research about the harmful effects of smoking became more certain, would have been faced with the choice of either retaining his job by 'toeing the line' and criticizing the new research, or walking away from his job.
No doubt some tobacco scientists did walk away from their job, just as some climate scientists have walked away from their position in government-funded climate research centres because their skepticism was not tolerated.
I recall a few years ago when reports began to emerge about the hormonal and neurological effects of fructose from corn syrup, which is added to so many processed foods and was claimed to have a significant effect on the body and mind's sensation of satiety when eating. In other words, people who ate a lot of fructose were unable to sense when they were full and had eaten enough, so they kept on eating to enjoy the taste of the food, which resulted in their obesity.
The Fructose industry is huge, just like the tobacco industry (was). I recall reading a leaked report of the decisions of a board meeting of one the major fructose suppliers. The board of management decided that the company would conduct it's own research into this issue. If the results of their research contradicted, or revealed flaws in the claims that Fructose interfered with the body's sense of satiety, they would publish the research. However, if their research were to confirm this theory, they would bury their research.
Government-funded climate research centres are not set up for the purpose of conducting an impartial and curious inquiry in the nature of climate. They are funded because of a claimed danger of CO2 emissions. The funding will continue, at least at its current level, only if the alarm about human emissions of so-called Greenhouse Gases is maintained. Isn't that obvious?
But then you also ruin your argument by bringing up Al Gore's income AGAIN. What does Al Gore's luck in the marketplace have to do with climate change? How is the fact that he fluked out and got rich(er) by releasing a book (or movie, I don't know which) germane to the discussion? I'm sorry, but who cares about Al Gore? You can't really be saying that because Gore got rich, then the case for human-caused climate change is invalid? How can that make any sense to anyone?
The issue is about the honesty and credibility of Gore. Bill Gates is wealthy and donates a lot of his wealth to poor people, because it's an issue he's concerned about. What would you think if Bill Gates were to merely talk a lot about poverty and write books about it, but not donate any of his wealth to the cause of poverty. Wouldn't you think he was a hypocrite?
If Gore were to reduce his 'carbon footprint' to an average or moderate amount and donate a large portion of his wealth to the construction of, say, a large solar farm which could produce low-cost electricity as a result of his free donation to the construction cost, then Gore would have a lot more credibility and might even appeal to intelligent people.