Arctic sea ice BACK to Normal!

[Old Rocks]

Please, feel free to produce a model that accurately predicts climate across a 30 year period.

Please, feel free to produce a model that accounts for recent warming trends without including anthropogenic effects.

You claim you've got the goods.

Where?

Oh...

You're right. you never did make that claim.

So you have no proof to support your assertion?

As far as proof to prove a negative, you are kidding i hope. However, if you are seeking proof that there have been warmer climates on this planet in the past absent Anthropogenic forcings, refer to the link below.

From the article linked is the reference to the start of the cycle of Ice Ages which followed and were probably caused by the closure of the Isthmus of Panama.

King Knute or the Big 0 can change the sea level, but i haven't heard of the person that move a continent.

It's not up to a guy who doubts your proof to disprove your case. It's up to you to prove it. So far, you have not. You are asking me to believe that what yuou say is true and are refusing to provide the proof. While you apparently now are saying that you have never said you have any proof, it might be nice to see some.

Would you care to present some proof in the near future?

File:65 Myr Climate Change Rev.png - Global Warming Art

Significant growth of ice sheets did not begin in Greenland and North America until approximately 3 million years ago, following the formation of the Isthmus of Panama by continental drift. This ushered in an era of rapidly cycling glacials and interglacials (see figure at upper right).

Strawman. Nobody here, least of all those that have a bit of knowledge in science, have ever claimed that there have not been warmer periods. As you well know. You are playing to the ignorant again, Code.

There have been warmer and colder periods in the geological history of this planet. It is not whether we are warming or cooling, it is the rate of change. And the rate of change for the last 150 years has been very fast, and is accelerating. In the past, when the rate of change was anywhere near what we are seeing today, there was a period of extinction. A period during which life was hard for the organisms on this planet.

Now we have over 7 billion people on this planet, dependent on an agriculture that is dependent on reasonably predictable weather. And that weather has been less predictable over the last few years. Droughts in Russia and Texas, floods in Australia and the US have all had effects on food supply and prices. The cost of infrastructure damage is also taking it's toll on governments that are already struggling with debt. And we are just barely into the period of consequences.

 

[code1211]

Please, feel free to produce a model that accounts for recent warming trends without including anthropogenic effects.



Where?

Oh...

You're right. you never did make that claim.

So you have no proof to support your assertion?

As far as proof to prove a negative, you are kidding i hope. However, if you are seeking proof that there have been warmer climates on this planet in the past absent Anthropogenic forcings, refer to the link below.

From the article linked is the reference to the start of the cycle of Ice Ages which followed and were probably caused by the closure of the Isthmus of Panama.

King Knute or the Big 0 can change the sea level, but i haven't heard of the person that move a continent.

It's not up to a guy who doubts your proof to disprove your case. It's up to you to prove it. So far, you have not. You are asking me to believe that what yuou say is true and are refusing to provide the proof. While you apparently now are saying that you have never said you have any proof, it might be nice to see some.

Would you care to present some proof in the near future?

File:65 Myr Climate Change Rev.png - Global Warming Art

Significant growth of ice sheets did not begin in Greenland and North America until approximately 3 million years ago, following the formation of the Isthmus of Panama by continental drift. This ushered in an era of rapidly cycling glacials and interglacials (see figure at upper right).

Strawman. Nobody here, least of all those that have a bit of knowledge in science, have ever claimed that there have not been warmer periods. As you well know. You are playing to the ignorant again, Code.

There have been warmer and colder periods in the geological history of this planet. It is not whether we are warming or cooling, it is the rate of change. And the rate of change for the last 150 years has been very fast, and is accelerating. In the past, when the rate of change was anywhere near what we are seeing today, there was a period of extinction. A period during which life was hard for the organisms on this planet.

Now we have over 7 billion people on this planet, dependent on an agriculture that is dependent on reasonably predictable weather. And that weather has been less predictable over the last few years. Droughts in Russia and Texas, floods in Australia and the US have all had effects on food supply and prices. The cost of infrastructure damage is also taking it's toll on governments that are already struggling with debt. And we are just barely into the period of consequences.

C'mon, Man!

You know that's at best inaccurate. The warming trend that we are enjoying right now has continued with an interruption for the Little ice Age pretty much for 2000 years.

The total warming in 2000 years has been about 0.7 degrees and the warming in the first millennium outpaced that of the second millennium.

What you are saying is accurate, but misrepresents the truth of the situation by its limited scope of review.

In order to explain the current warming, you must first explain the previous cooling. Whatever caused the previous cooling ended in about 1600 and that pre-dates the cause you cite for the warming that followed it. Logic dictates that the future cannot cause the past and yet this is what you assert.

You always ignore this as it does not fit into your tidy little box of causation.

If you cannot account for the real world in your argument, then your argument needs some work.

 

[IanC]

what has the rate of change been over the last 10 or 15 years? are you sure it is accelerating? I thought there was a controversy whether it was warming at all, and now you are saying it is changing faster than before? hmmmmmmm

 

[daveman]

I'd have to sink pretty low to get to your level of stupidity. Take a look at their sources of income nimrod. They get millions of dollars in grants every year. They also get at least 200,000 per year as a tenured professor. Some get 400,000 plus.

Senior Climate Scientist Salary in Berkeley, CA | Indeed.com

Senior Climate Scientist in Berkeley, CA
$129,000

Is your understanding of "at least" different from mine?

NASA Scientist Accused Of Using Celeb Status Among Environmental Groups To Enrich Himself | Fox News

The NASA scientist who once claimed the Bush administration tried to "silence" his global warming claims is now accused of receiving more than $1.2 million from the very environmental organizations whose agenda he advocated.

In a lawsuit filed Tuesday in Washington, D.C., a group claims NASA is withholding documents that show James Hansen failed to comply with ethics rules and financial disclosures regarding substantial compensation he earned outside his $180,000 taxpayer-paid position as director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies.​

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I'd have to sink pretty low to get to your level of stupidity. Take a look at their sources of income nimrod. They get millions of dollars in grants every year. They also get at least 200,000 per year as a tenured professor. Some get 400,000 plus.

Senior Climate Scientist Salary in Berkeley, CA | Indeed.com

Senior Climate Scientist in Berkeley, CA
$129,000

Is your understanding of "at least" different from mine?

NASA Scientist Accused Of Using Celeb Status Among Environmental Groups To Enrich Himself | Fox News

The NASA scientist who once claimed the Bush administration tried to "silence" his global warming claims is now accused of receiving more than $1.2 million from the very environmental organizations whose agenda he advocated.

In a lawsuit filed Tuesday in Washington, D.C., a group claims NASA is withholding documents that show James Hansen failed to comply with ethics rules and financial disclosures regarding substantial compensation he earned outside his $180,000 taxpayer-paid position as director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies.​

Wow. So I guess all Professors make at east $200,000 a year. In spite of factual evidence to the contrary. You responded by saying something about James Hansen, so obviously that proves me wrong - every Professor in the nation just got a raise to at least 200k thanks to your altering of reality based on a non-sequitor outlier!

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

hahahaha. would it make the slightest difference to you if I linked to anything?

Yes.

So because evidence is so hard for you to produce - you no longer need it for your arguments to be correct. Got it. I'm sorry that at one time the burden of proving your arguments was actually on you.

what is your opinion on the Soon/Baliunas affair? do you think it was reasonable to force de Freitas out because he published their paper?

Decide what my opinion is for me if you don't mind. You don't need evidence for any of your arguments, so you may as well just make up my thoughts for me while you're at it. I'm sure you haven't actually read the paper in question - and neither have I - so its hard to imagine how either of us has business making an opinion out of it.

Evidence is easy to produce.

Fools are hard to convince.

I don't blame Ian for not wanting to bother. I wouldn't either.

Oh BTW. Does your data on university professor earnings include benefits and profits from publishing, speaking and extra curricular activities and research they are in charge of?

I'm just curious.

"Profits" from publishing?

When do I get those? LOL! That's hilarious.

I'm sorry but in the real world where I live, at the university I work for, if a professor receives a fee for speaking about his work - the university gets the money.

But by all means I think you should continue to base your argument on the assumption that every single UNiversity professor is compensated in exactly the same manner as James Hansen, that makes plenty of logical sense. Then you can ignore the rest of reality and concentrate on that one evil scientist you hate.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Please, feel free to produce a model that accurately predicts climate across a 30 year period.

Please, feel free to produce a model that accounts for recent warming trends without including anthropogenic effects.

You claim you've got the goods.

Where?

Oh...

You're right. you never did make that claim.

So you have no proof to support your assertion?

As far as proof to prove a negative, you are kidding i hope. However, if you are seeking proof that there have been warmer climates on this planet in the past absent Anthropogenic forcings, refer to the link below.

From the article linked is the reference to the start of the cycle of Ice Ages which followed and were probably caused by the closure of the Isthmus of Panama.

King Knute or the Big 0 can change the sea level, but i haven't heard of the person that move a continent.

It's not up to a guy who doubts your proof to disprove your case. It's up to you to prove it. So far, you have not. You are asking me to believe that what yuou say is true and are refusing to provide the proof. While you apparently now are saying that you have never said you have any proof, it might be nice to see some.

Would you care to present some proof in the near future?

File:65 Myr Climate Change Rev.png - Global Warming Art

Significant growth of ice sheets did not begin in Greenland and North America until approximately 3 million years ago, following the formation of the Isthmus of Panama by continental drift. This ushered in an era of rapidly cycling glacials and interglacials (see figure at upper right).

I didn't ask you to prove a negative.


I asked you to provide a climate model that accounts for recent warming without the input of anthropogenic effects.

Can you?

 

[Big Fitz]

Yes.

So because evidence is so hard for you to produce - you no longer need it for your arguments to be correct. Got it. I'm sorry that at one time the burden of proving your arguments was actually on you.


Decide what my opinion is for me if you don't mind. You don't need evidence for any of your arguments, so you may as well just make up my thoughts for me while you're at it. I'm sure you haven't actually read the paper in question - and neither have I - so its hard to imagine how either of us has business making an opinion out of it.

Evidence is easy to produce.

Fools are hard to convince.

I don't blame Ian for not wanting to bother. I wouldn't either.

Oh BTW. Does your data on university professor earnings include benefits and profits from publishing, speaking and extra curricular activities and research they are in charge of?

I'm just curious.

"Profits" from publishing?

When do I get those? LOL! That's hilarious.

I'm sorry but in the real world where I live, at the university I work for, if a professor receives a fee for speaking about his work - the university gets the money.

But by all means I think you should continue to base your argument on the assumption that every single UNiversity professor is compensated in exactly the same manner as James Hansen, that makes plenty of logical sense. Then you can ignore the rest of reality and concentrate on that one evil scientist you hate.

So you also have no benefit package? Do those benefits have a cash value? Do I think all professors make half a million dollars? Fuck no. My parents were educators at the public school and university levels. I know they're mostly not rich. But I do know some can be incredibly well off depending on field and their contracts.

I'm surprised about not getting any money for speaking engagements. I knew some who did. And I know music professors often get to be paid for their performances and whatnot they do outside the university setting.

I didn't realize your University owned you. Of course I assume you're telling the truth, because anyone can claim anything.

 

[code1211]

Please, feel free to produce a model that accounts for recent warming trends without including anthropogenic effects.



Where?

Oh...

You're right. you never did make that claim.

So you have no proof to support your assertion?

As far as proof to prove a negative, you are kidding i hope. However, if you are seeking proof that there have been warmer climates on this planet in the past absent Anthropogenic forcings, refer to the link below.

From the article linked is the reference to the start of the cycle of Ice Ages which followed and were probably caused by the closure of the Isthmus of Panama.

King Knute or the Big 0 can change the sea level, but i haven't heard of the person that move a continent.

It's not up to a guy who doubts your proof to disprove your case. It's up to you to prove it. So far, you have not. You are asking me to believe that what yuou say is true and are refusing to provide the proof. While you apparently now are saying that you have never said you have any proof, it might be nice to see some.

Would you care to present some proof in the near future?

File:65 Myr Climate Change Rev.png - Global Warming Art

Significant growth of ice sheets did not begin in Greenland and North America until approximately 3 million years ago, following the formation of the Isthmus of Panama by continental drift. This ushered in an era of rapidly cycling glacials and interglacials (see figure at upper right).

I didn't ask you to prove a negative.


I asked you to provide a climate model that accounts for recent warming without the input of anthropogenic effects.

Can you?

How do you feel about CERN? They seem to think that the warming can be explained by, and this is bolt from the blue, the Sun. When the Sun is more active, it reduces the cosmic rays from hitting Earth and when it is less active, more cosmic rays "seed" clouds in the upper atmosphere creating a cooling feed back loop.

Can you say Little ice Age?

This is a reasonable and provable hypothesis that the Journal nature has run an article explaining. As i understand it, the 8000 scientists from 60 nations are pretty smart and they seem to think there is a plausible alternative explanation.

Now, back to you. It is you who seem to be endorsing the AGW theory. What do you have for proof?

Did CLOUD Just Rain on the Global Warming Parade? - Forbes

<snip>
Global warming advocates have responded, in turn, that while the sun has indeed been more active in the last half of the century, the actual percentage change in solar irradiance is tiny, and hardly seems large enough to explain measured increases in temperatures and ocean heat content.

And thus the debate stood, until a Danish scientist named Henrik Svensmark suggested something outrageous &#8212; that cosmic rays might seed cloud formation. The implications, if true, had potentially enormous implications for the debate about natural causes of warming.

When the sun is very active, it can be thought of as pushing away cosmic rays from the Earth, reducing their incidence. When the sun is less active, we see more cosmic rays. This is fairly well understood. But if Svensmark was correct, it would mean that periods of high solar output should coincide with reduced cloud formation (due to reduced cosmic ray incidence), which in turn would have a warming effect on the Earth, since less sunlight would be reflected back into space by clouds.
<snip>

 

[daveman]

Senior Climate Scientist Salary in Berkeley, CA | Indeed.com


Is your understanding of "at least" different from mine?

NASA Scientist Accused Of Using Celeb Status Among Environmental Groups To Enrich Himself | Fox News

The NASA scientist who once claimed the Bush administration tried to "silence" his global warming claims is now accused of receiving more than $1.2 million from the very environmental organizations whose agenda he advocated.

In a lawsuit filed Tuesday in Washington, D.C., a group claims NASA is withholding documents that show James Hansen failed to comply with ethics rules and financial disclosures regarding substantial compensation he earned outside his $180,000 taxpayer-paid position as director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies.​

Wow. So I guess all Professors make at east $200,000 a year. In spite of factual evidence to the contrary. You responded by saying something about James Hansen, so obviously that proves me wrong - every Professor in the nation just got a raise to at least 200k thanks to your altering of reality based on a non-sequitor outlier!

You go out of your way to be dumb, don't you?

I showed that climate scientists make lots of extra money on the side.

 

[Old Rocks]

Oh...

You're right. you never did make that claim.

So you have no proof to support your assertion?

As far as proof to prove a negative, you are kidding i hope. However, if you are seeking proof that there have been warmer climates on this planet in the past absent Anthropogenic forcings, refer to the link below.

From the article linked is the reference to the start of the cycle of Ice Ages which followed and were probably caused by the closure of the Isthmus of Panama.

King Knute or the Big 0 can change the sea level, but i haven't heard of the person that move a continent.

It's not up to a guy who doubts your proof to disprove your case. It's up to you to prove it. So far, you have not. You are asking me to believe that what yuou say is true and are refusing to provide the proof. While you apparently now are saying that you have never said you have any proof, it might be nice to see some.

Would you care to present some proof in the near future?

File:65 Myr Climate Change Rev.png - Global Warming Art

Significant growth of ice sheets did not begin in Greenland and North America until approximately 3 million years ago, following the formation of the Isthmus of Panama by continental drift. This ushered in an era of rapidly cycling glacials and interglacials (see figure at upper right).

Strawman. Nobody here, least of all those that have a bit of knowledge in science, have ever claimed that there have not been warmer periods. As you well know. You are playing to the ignorant again, Code.

There have been warmer and colder periods in the geological history of this planet. It is not whether we are warming or cooling, it is the rate of change. And the rate of change for the last 150 years has been very fast, and is accelerating. In the past, when the rate of change was anywhere near what we are seeing today, there was a period of extinction. A period during which life was hard for the organisms on this planet.

Now we have over 7 billion people on this planet, dependent on an agriculture that is dependent on reasonably predictable weather. And that weather has been less predictable over the last few years. Droughts in Russia and Texas, floods in Australia and the US have all had effects on food supply and prices. The cost of infrastructure damage is also taking it's toll on governments that are already struggling with debt. And we are just barely into the period of consequences.

C'mon, Man!

You know that's at best inaccurate. The warming trend that we are enjoying right now has continued with an interruption for the Little ice Age pretty much for 2000 years.

The total warming in 2000 years has been about 0.7 degrees and the warming in the first millennium outpaced that of the second millennium.

What you are saying is accurate, but misrepresents the truth of the situation by its limited scope of review.

In order to explain the current warming, you must first explain the previous cooling. Whatever caused the previous cooling ended in about 1600 and that pre-dates the cause you cite for the warming that followed it. Logic dictates that the future cannot cause the past and yet this is what you assert.

You always ignore this as it does not fit into your tidy little box of causation.

If you cannot account for the real world in your argument, then your argument needs some work.

Once again you are playing to the ignorant, Code. The Maunder Minimum is well known to any interested in climate science. And the worldwide rise in temperatures in the MWP was only + 0.2, not the + o.7 we have already reached.

 

[Old Rocks]

NASA Scientist Accused Of Using Celeb Status Among Environmental Groups To Enrich Himself | Fox News

The NASA scientist who once claimed the Bush administration tried to "silence" his global warming claims is now accused of receiving more than $1.2 million from the very environmental organizations whose agenda he advocated.

In a lawsuit filed Tuesday in Washington, D.C., a group claims NASA is withholding documents that show James Hansen failed to comply with ethics rules and financial disclosures regarding substantial compensation he earned outside his $180,000 taxpayer-paid position as director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies.​

Wow. So I guess all Professors make at east $200,000 a year. In spite of factual evidence to the contrary. You responded by saying something about James Hansen, so obviously that proves me wrong - every Professor in the nation just got a raise to at least 200k thanks to your altering of reality based on a non-sequitor outlier!

You go out of your way to be dumb, don't you?

I showed that climate scientists make lots of extra money on the side.

Not at all. What you have shown is that those at the top of the field made a lot of extra money writing and lecturing. Very few evoluntionary biologists make the money that Ernst Meyr and Stephen Jay Gould did. Very few have that kind of writing talent.

 

[daveman]

Wow. So I guess all Professors make at east $200,000 a year. In spite of factual evidence to the contrary. You responded by saying something about James Hansen, so obviously that proves me wrong - every Professor in the nation just got a raise to at least 200k thanks to your altering of reality based on a non-sequitor outlier!

You go out of your way to be dumb, don't you?

I showed that climate scientists make lots of extra money on the side.

Not at all. What you have shown is that those at the top of the field made a lot of extra money writing and lecturing. Very few evoluntionary biologists make the money that Ernst Meyr and Stephen Jay Gould did. Very few have that kind of writing talent.

There is far more money available to the AGW cult than there is to skeptics.

 

[code1211]

Strawman. Nobody here, least of all those that have a bit of knowledge in science, have ever claimed that there have not been warmer periods. As you well know. You are playing to the ignorant again, Code.

There have been warmer and colder periods in the geological history of this planet. It is not whether we are warming or cooling, it is the rate of change. And the rate of change for the last 150 years has been very fast, and is accelerating. In the past, when the rate of change was anywhere near what we are seeing today, there was a period of extinction. A period during which life was hard for the organisms on this planet.

Now we have over 7 billion people on this planet, dependent on an agriculture that is dependent on reasonably predictable weather. And that weather has been less predictable over the last few years. Droughts in Russia and Texas, floods in Australia and the US have all had effects on food supply and prices. The cost of infrastructure damage is also taking it's toll on governments that are already struggling with debt. And we are just barely into the period of consequences.

C'mon, Man!

You know that's at best inaccurate. The warming trend that we are enjoying right now has continued with an interruption for the Little ice Age pretty much for 2000 years.

The total warming in 2000 years has been about 0.7 degrees and the warming in the first millennium outpaced that of the second millennium.

What you are saying is accurate, but misrepresents the truth of the situation by its limited scope of review.

In order to explain the current warming, you must first explain the previous cooling. Whatever caused the previous cooling ended in about 1600 and that pre-dates the cause you cite for the warming that followed it. Logic dictates that the future cannot cause the past and yet this is what you assert.

You always ignore this as it does not fit into your tidy little box of causation.

If you cannot account for the real world in your argument, then your argument needs some work.

Once again you are playing to the ignorant, Code. The Maunder Minimum is well known to any interested in climate science. And the worldwide rise in temperatures in the MWP was only + 0.2, not the + o.7 we have already reached.

The way I read this graph, we rose about 0.4 degrees in the fist millennium and about 0.3 degrees in the second.

What if the two increases were exactly equal, though? What does that do to your belief in AGW?

If the rise in the climate's temperature is exactly the same across two consecutive millennia and one of them is cursed by the increase of Anthropogenic CO2 while the other is free of same, you theory seems empty.

The effects would be identical but one of them does not have the only cause you say could produce it.

What's an alarmist to do?

File:2000 Year Temperature Comparison.png - Global Warming Art

 

[IanC]

using the 'idiosyncratic' spagetti graph, no less. Mann would be proud. lol

 

[code1211]

using the 'idiosyncratic' spagetti graph, no less. Mann would be proud. lol

We use what is available.

 

[westwall]

Strawman. Nobody here, least of all those that have a bit of knowledge in science, have ever claimed that there have not been warmer periods. As you well know. You are playing to the ignorant again, Code.

There have been warmer and colder periods in the geological history of this planet. It is not whether we are warming or cooling, it is the rate of change. And the rate of change for the last 150 years has been very fast, and is accelerating. In the past, when the rate of change was anywhere near what we are seeing today, there was a period of extinction. A period during which life was hard for the organisms on this planet.

Now we have over 7 billion people on this planet, dependent on an agriculture that is dependent on reasonably predictable weather. And that weather has been less predictable over the last few years. Droughts in Russia and Texas, floods in Australia and the US have all had effects on food supply and prices. The cost of infrastructure damage is also taking it's toll on governments that are already struggling with debt. And we are just barely into the period of consequences.

C'mon, Man!

You know that's at best inaccurate. The warming trend that we are enjoying right now has continued with an interruption for the Little ice Age pretty much for 2000 years.

The total warming in 2000 years has been about 0.7 degrees and the warming in the first millennium outpaced that of the second millennium.

What you are saying is accurate, but misrepresents the truth of the situation by its limited scope of review.

In order to explain the current warming, you must first explain the previous cooling. Whatever caused the previous cooling ended in about 1600 and that pre-dates the cause you cite for the warming that followed it. Logic dictates that the future cannot cause the past and yet this is what you assert.

You always ignore this as it does not fit into your tidy little box of causation.

If you cannot account for the real world in your argument, then your argument needs some work.

Once again you are playing to the ignorant, Code. The Maunder Minimum is well known to any interested in climate science. And the worldwide rise in temperatures in the MWP was only + 0.2, not the + o.7 we have already reached.

Not true. The temp rise varied depending on where you were. Here in the Sierra Nevada mountains the rise was around 2.5C. In the Antarctic it was around .2-.5C. In Europe it was significantly warmer. Probably closer to 3C.

 

[saveliberty]

I see Old Rocks is using circular reasoning again. Trot out the same tired, disproved graphs over and over again. Causation doesn't exist without false data and poor science.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Evidence is easy to produce.

Fools are hard to convince.

I don't blame Ian for not wanting to bother. I wouldn't either.

Oh BTW. Does your data on university professor earnings include benefits and profits from publishing, speaking and extra curricular activities and research they are in charge of?

I'm just curious.

"Profits" from publishing?

When do I get those? LOL! That's hilarious.

I'm sorry but in the real world where I live, at the university I work for, if a professor receives a fee for speaking about his work - the university gets the money.

But by all means I think you should continue to base your argument on the assumption that every single UNiversity professor is compensated in exactly the same manner as James Hansen, that makes plenty of logical sense. Then you can ignore the rest of reality and concentrate on that one evil scientist you hate.

So you also have no benefit package? Do those benefits have a cash value? Do I think all professors make half a million dollars? Fuck no. My parents were educators at the public school and university levels. I know they're mostly not rich. But I do know some can be incredibly well off depending on field and their contracts.

I'm surprised about not getting any money for speaking engagements. I knew some who did. And I know music professors often get to be paid for their performances and whatnot they do outside the university setting.

I didn't realize your University owned you. Of course I assume you're telling the truth, because anyone can claim anything.

The University I work for owns my research.

 

[Big Fitz]

"Profits" from publishing?

When do I get those? LOL! That's hilarious.

I'm sorry but in the real world where I live, at the university I work for, if a professor receives a fee for speaking about his work - the university gets the money.

But by all means I think you should continue to base your argument on the assumption that every single UNiversity professor is compensated in exactly the same manner as James Hansen, that makes plenty of logical sense. Then you can ignore the rest of reality and concentrate on that one evil scientist you hate.

So you also have no benefit package? Do those benefits have a cash value? Do I think all professors make half a million dollars? Fuck no. My parents were educators at the public school and university levels. I know they're mostly not rich. But I do know some can be incredibly well off depending on field and their contracts.

I'm surprised about not getting any money for speaking engagements. I knew some who did. And I know music professors often get to be paid for their performances and whatnot they do outside the university setting.

I didn't realize your University owned you. Of course I assume you're telling the truth, because anyone can claim anything.

The University I work for owns my research.

Boy did YOU choose poorly then. I didn't realize that even speaking about the research you made for them was their property too.

Must suck big.

No wonder you don't think anyone else can or should fare better by making smarter decisions. Or you're one heck of a bitter altruist.