I am "countering" the paper referenced earlier. I suspect the cross currents are because I'm the only one who read the damn thing. Which is just as well. Waste of time. What's false-intellectually dishonest might be a better term-is "researchers" whose stated position seems similar to yours, namely that climate data, in some uselessly broad sense, is cooked, fabricated whatever. But then they use that exact same primary data as a starting point for their own work. Even, in this case, if they just scan and digitize graphs that they presumably think are crap.
Yes. There is an inverse correlation between unfocused criticism of climate data and the ability to generate it.
I have no reason to believe funding for the work in question represents a Ponzi scheme. I cannot image what aspect of it would attract investors. In this case the work was funded by the B. Macfie Family Foundation which contributes to a think tank called the Institute of Public Affairs, which in Australia is akin to something like the Heartland Institute here in the states. The senior author on the study worked at IPA and the money seemed to flow with her in an interesting way when she took a faculty position at Queensland. So not a Ponzi scheme. Just a simple quid pro quo.
Just wear the beautiful shirt and everything will be fine. Wovoka was in the desert last night, extracting Tumors and performing Cures.
