The first one of the articles is Dr. James Hansen’s growing financial scandal, now over a million dollars of outside income.
It is important because it shows how personal profit as well as getting grants through personal aggrandizement has soiled the Climate Change debate and those who profit by it. This is only on James Hansen:
NASA records released to resolve litigation filed by the American Tradition Institute reveal that astronomer and global warming activist Dr. James E. Hansen, an astronomer, received approximately $1.6 million in outside, direct cash income in the past five years for work related to — and, according to his benefactors, often expressly for — his public service as a global warming activist within NASA. This does not include six-figure income over that period in travel expenses to fly around the world to receive money from outside interests.
Also troubling, and specifically detailed below, is that he failed to report tens of thousands of dollars in global travel provided to him by outside parties – including to London, Paris, Rome, Oslo, Tokyo, the Austrian Alps, Bilbao, California, Australia and elsewhere, often business or first-class and also often paying for his wife as well — to receive honoraria to speak about the topic of his taxpayer-funded employment, or get cash awards for his activism and even his testimony and other work for NASA.
Ethics laws require that such payments or gifts be reported on an SF278 public financial disclosure form. As detailed, below, Hansen often refused to report this income, nonetheless.
Also, he seems to have inappropriately taken between $10,000 and $26,000 for speeches unlawfully promoting him as a NASA employee, even despite NASA ordering him to return the money. This raises troubling issues about Hansen’s, and NASA’s, compliance with ethics rules, the general prohibition on not privately benefiting from public service, and even the criminal code prohibition on not privately benefiting from public employment. All of this lucrative activity followed Hansen ratcheting up his global warming alarmism and activism to be more political which, now to his possible detriment, he has insisted is part of his job. As he cannot receive outside income for his job, he has placed himself in peril, assuming the Department of Justice can find a way to be interested in these revelations.
This just lists the personal profits he made. Go to here to see some of the millions in grants he and his fellow believers racked in. And here to see how unsettled the science really is.
Next a discussion on the salaries of CEO’s by Clayton Cramer.
Therefore the occurrence of prostatitis can bring many problems sildenafil tabs in a person’s life among them being low self-esteem. You might have heard a pharmacy viagra lot of times about erectile dysfunction- an inability of reaching an erection during physical intimacy with their female partners and erectile dysfunction is most common among men than women. It cialis for sale online should not be used in combination with medicines having nitrates. Despite the wide variety cialis order of reasons the primary cause of bad relationships between lovers or a couple. CEO Salaries and Pharmaceutical Costs
How much do CEO and other top exec salaries add to the cost of drugs?
He discusses how much it actually adds to the cost of the drugs. In his opinion, and he gives facts and figures, it is not much.
I have another question on this. I would like to see some studies and comments along these lines. How much does the cost of advertising add to the cost of drugs. I’ve been taking some of these advertised drugs for many years and I know how much they cost now and what they cost before advertising in public magazine and over the airwaves. How many doctor hours have been wasted with patients who saw an advertisement and thought it fit them? How many have been prescribed those drugs when the same old one they had been using would have worked just as well?
I don’t have the answer to this but I bet someone does. I would like to see the charts on it.
Engineering analysis discovers what influenced the 20th century average global temperatures. Change to the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide had no significant effect.
A simple equation based on the physical phenomena involved, with inputs of only sunspot numbers (not used like you have seen) and ppmv CO2, calculates the average global temperatures (agt) since 1895 (that’s 115 years and counting) with 88.4% accuracy (an insignificantly lower 87.9% if CO2 is assumed to have no influence).
The equation, links to the source data, an eye-opening graph of the results and how they are derived are in the pdfs at http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=145&linkbox=true (see especially the pdfs made public on 4/10/10, 3/10/11 and 9/24/11).
As shown in the 9/24/11 pdf, the equation accurately predicted the temperature trends for the last 20 years.
The future average global temperature trend that this equation calculates is down. The huge effective thermal capacitance of the oceans (about 30 times everything else) will cause the decline to be only about 0.13°C per decade. The decline may be as much as 0.22°C per decade if the sun goes really quiet.
This trend is corroborated by the growing separation between the rising CO2 and not-rising agt. From 2001 through September, 2011 the atmospheric CO2 increased by 23.7% of the total increase from 1800 to 2001 while the average global temperature has not increased. The 23.7% CO2 increase is the significant measurement, not the comparatively brief time period.
Without human caused global warming there can be no human caused climate change.
I am honored by your reply. I am not the scientist in my family, my husband is. But not in atmospherics or climate. I learned about ice ages coming and receding in the 4 th grade during WWII and have seen nothing since to make me think there is anything different going on. I wish I understood your data but intuitively my mind tells me humans couldn’t do it if they wanted to. And it may come down to wanting too.