Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > "Just Click Here Now to Put an End to the ‘Global Warming’ Lie."

Scientist Confesses: "Global Warming a $22 Billion Scam"


"I urge you to click the button below and make a small contribution of $5 or more today.

We’ll rush you a free Cold Truth Initiative Introductory Packet that includes John’s book Dark Winter along with The Lost Video Interview, The Dark Winter Investment Guide, The Dark Winter Survival Guide, and a three-month subscription to my Resolute Wealth Letter."

So somebody at least is looking to make money from the ending of the scam.

Dec 30, 2014 at 8:47 PM | Registered CommenterMartin A

Lots of sceptics make money publishing bullshit. What is one more?

Dec 31, 2014 at 12:48 AM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Could you give us some helpful links please, EM. I'd like to get my hands on some of this fabled dosh.

Dec 31, 2014 at 2:09 AM | Unregistered Commentermichael hart


Go here . You can buy propoganda books and leaflets; even a calendar.

Dec 31, 2014 at 10:49 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

I was asking for links that will give me money for writing BS as you claimed, EM.

If Andrew Montford was making good money being a sceptic, then he wouldn't need a day job. Nor would JoNova, or Anthony Watts, or TallBloke.

Dec 31, 2014 at 11:30 PM | Unregistered Commentermichael hart

Michael hart

GWPF paid Montford £3000 for his climategate report. Watts announced on his website that the Heartland Institute gave him some $75, 000 to set up his stations website. There used to be money available.

In the UK nowadays your best bet is probably Benny Peiser or his sponsor Michael Hintze You might also try the Daily Mail.

As you say, it would be hard to make a living writing sceptic propoganda, though you might make a bit on the side.

Jan 1, 2015 at 12:40 AM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Hey nice CLICK BATE headline Martin
.. Who would not click ?

Jan 1, 2015 at 2:37 AM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

Link please EM, not rumours.
I certainly heard that they may have been going to give him some money to pay someone else to construct a site that relayed data the US government wasn't presenting. Not like it was going into his pocket. Why would they pay him to blog when he was already doing so for free? And 3000 doesn't seem like money for old rope to AM. Sounds like less than a reasonable going rate for the work involved. Is that all all you've got for the big-oil conspiracy?

Jan 1, 2015 at 4:58 AM | Unregistered Commentermichael hart

And it's not like 3K would fly AM to Lima and back and put him up for a couple of weeks in a hotel is it? How many people do the enviro's get to send on every foreign binge? Gimme a break...

Jan 1, 2015 at 5:01 AM | Unregistered Commentermichael hart

Dec 31, 2014 at 12:48 AM Entropic man: "Lots of sceptics make money publishing bullshit."

What Difference A Day Made...

Jan 1, 2015 at 12:40 AM Entropic man: "... it would be hard to make a living writing sceptic propoganda, though you might make a bit on the side."

"GWPF paid Montford £3000 for his climategate report."
EM - without a reference for that, we'll have to assume that that figure is just something you made up.

But £3k to produce a document of ~60 pages seems definitely on the low side for any sort of professional.

Even if Andrew Montford produced one complete page per hour, it would be less than half the hourly rate my accountant charges. But taking a realistic view of the time involved, and assuming that it took time away from his professional work, it seems likely that the work would have *reduced* his total income. Not exactly "making money".

So if that is the best you can come up with to illustrate "Lots of sceptics make money publishing bullshit", it will have to be written off as yet another Entropic Mannerism.

Jan 1, 2015 at 10:34 AM | Registered CommenterMartin A

Entropic Man works using strange maths 2 = lots; big money = $80k.

That means a tribe of warmists make a kings ransom each publishing pal reviewed horse muck.

Jan 1, 2015 at 10:56 AM | Unregistered CommenterSandyS

Martin A

Why not ask Mr Montford what he was paid??

I got it here .

If you have evidence that he was paid more, or less, let us see it.

Jan 1, 2015 at 7:16 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

The Watts figure came from the stolen Heartland Institute 2012 Climate Strategy document. Of course the Heartland Institute later claimed it was fake, but the would say that, wouldn't they.

Easily proven. Provide a link the the actual 1012 accounts and we can compare them.

Jan 1, 2015 at 7:32 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Entropic man
Any chance of a link to the funders of That's one sceptical blog I'd like to know about.

Jan 1, 2015 at 7:50 PM | Unregistered CommenterSandyS

Yes, a nicely balanced site to get your information, EM. Well done, you.

Jan 1, 2015 at 8:16 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Martin A
Why not ask Mr Montford what he was paid??
I got it here .
If you have evidence that he was paid more, or less, let us see it.
Jan 1, 2015 at 7:16 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man


"I got it here" The page you point to gives references. But not to that figure. So it has to be assumed to be somebody's guess, no different from if you had made it up yourself.

"Why not ask Mr Montford what he was paid?"
It is none of my business how much he was paid for doing something or even if he received any payment at all. Why on earth should I ask him such a question?

"If you have evidence that he was paid more, or less, let us see it." I have no idea how much, if anything at all, he was paid for something he did. Why on earth should I have any such information?

EM - it was *you* who made a statement about how much AM was paid for something. I just pointed out that was just a guess. You have not substantiated what you said. It is not up to me to produce information in place of the information you have shown you do not have.

EM - you are following a line that seems common among CAGW believers:
1. Say something like "the temperature may rise as much as nine degrees"
2. When it's pointed out that this is bollocks, to reply something like "In that case, you have to give details of how you calculate what the temperature will be", with an implication that not doing so will somehow validate the nonsense you have said.

As has been pointed out many times, if you make some rubbish statement, those pointing out it is rubbish have no obligation to produce some alternative statement stating what the reality is. This principle applies whether you are talking rubbish about future climate, or about how much somebody was paid for something.

Do you see the logic in this?

Jan 1, 2015 at 9:19 PM | Registered CommenterMartin A

No, Martin A, I don't think he does. That is one of my generous interpretations of many of EM's anti-sceptic screeds. Another generous interpretation is that he ought to take more water with it.

Jan 1, 2015 at 9:47 PM | Unregistered Commentermichael hart

mh - yes, it's a good principle not to post things when pissed.

Jan 1, 2015 at 9:58 PM | Registered CommenterMartin A

@Martin When Anti-Denialists post they are are usually pissed OFF .. cos they haven't taken over the world yet their own chosen defintion
"Anti-Denialism is the employment of rhetorical tactics to give the appearance that of argument or legitimate debate Science is Settled and there is no Climate Debate, when in actuality there is none. These false arguments are used when one has few or no facts to support one’s viewpoint against FOR a scientific consensus or against overwhelming evidence to the contrary. They are effective in distracting from actual useful debate using emotionally appealing, but ultimately empty and illogical assertions."
- quite typically it's fueled by amateur bloggers who we can smear by alleging they are paid by big oil who seem to get much more freebies, invites to international Climate Conference etc. than skeptics ever get
- Anti-Denialists then link to websites blog not run by experts ..right after they castigated skeptics for not being "proper scientists"

- However we should be able to take them on their argument, not merely try to dismiss everything just cos on very few occasions they may have received legitimate expenses

Jan 2, 2015 at 2:32 AM | Registered Commenterstewgreen