What's funny is that I googled "Father of Climatology" and found something about Dr. Helmut Landsberg (this) from Weather.gov, and a whole lot of blog posts about this article.

Then I went to Google Scholar and looked up Dr. Bryson. I found this abstract, in which he says that "ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE SUGGESTS A LONG PATTERN OF INTERMITTENT OCCUPATION WITH MAN PLAYING AN IMPORTANT PART IN MAKING THE DESERT" and discusses the possibility of further anthropogenic climate change, at least more locally.

So then I searched for papers by Bryson with the phrase "anthropogenic climate change" in them and found only 5. Only one of those (I can't access the text of all of them, however) appears to actually dispute anthropogenic climate change, and it's a non-peer-reviewed opinion essay (here: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0028-6087(199323)24%3A4%3C783%3AEEAGCA%3E2.0.CO %3B2-Q).

Just saying.

Vic Sage: Go ask Saint Gore how the company he helped start stands to gain from a cap and trade system for CO2 emissions.

Does he pay kickbacks to researchers whose findings support the theory?

Bryson said he recently wrote something on the subject and two graduate students told him he was wrong, citing research done by one of their professors. That professor, Bryson noted, is probably the student of one of his students.

Damn young'ns. How dare they question their elders by citing research or arguments based on logic.

Vic Sage: There are numerous bore hole measurements that disagree with this. Don't simply rely on the Mann reconstructions, they have serious statistical flaws.

Disagree with what? Jon was referring to the greenhouse effect, not to any given CO2 reconstructions. There's no disagreement with the mechanism of the greenhouse effect, which this guy implies (by saying that CO2 has no effect).

CO2 rose AFTER temperature, 800 years after. Cause PRECEDES effect. Causality is a basic scientific concept you can't just throw it out to suit your needs.

Currently? I don't believe that's correct. Previous warming periods, yes, but not the current one. The latest temperature spike we see starting only about 200 years ago (e.g., here).

Unless UHI sites are preferentially used to measure that temperature.

True. Are there data that indicate that if we remove urban measurements, there is no temperature change? Would that not be inconsistent with upper atmosphere temperature increases we've seen?

Vic Sage: Al Gore: O holy farking shiat the sky is farking falling!
Politician: O holy farking shiat we need to do something!
Scientist: O farking yes, I am an expert I can tell you what to do!
Politician: O farking good, here is some money!

Strangely, most of our politicians seem to believe the opposite. Only recently did the Bush administration even admit that there might be a warming trend, no?

Probably because they're courageous enough to stand up to the conspirators.

Also, what about the grants that have been repeatedly offered by uninterested altruists like Exxon for any paper that disputes current research? Surely that balances out all of Gore's dirty money, no?

tglems: A newspaper article didn't quote data and facts and figures???? Oh NOES!?!?! He must be terribly wrong and an idiot! Why didn't he just print all the data in the local newspaper? How comes our local journalistssss didn't turn this into a scientific articles? Oh NOES!1!! Now we can all surely decide that this man is a quack! Thank you local media!

You must've missed the post where I went and searched for papers by him on Google Scholar and found one nice little non-peer-reviewed essay where he says there's no such thing as anthropogenic climate change, and a bunch of older peer reviewed research papers where he does things like discuss the ways in which agriculture has changed the climate in Indian deserts.

Toonol: people regurgitating factoids that they barely understand, factoids fed to them by their ideological leaders on both sides of the political spectrum.

I'm not saying I disagree with you--I think this is pretty common--but why not point it out when you see it?

jonny_q: This whole "carbon offset" bullshiat for one.

That part is bullshiat, though I'm not sure how profitable it's really been.

The whole "hybrids are less evil" bullshiat for another.

The incentive there is primarily fuel costs, I suspect, not being environmentally friendly.

Then there's the profit from algore's movie. And other various entertainment media on the subject.

There's just as much profit from things like Channel4's "documentary."

The key point, though, is that none of those profit sources you mentioned--and they all could well be valid--are directed at research scientists. As far as I know, Toyota hasn't split Prius profits (if they've made any off of them) with prominent research scientists, the carbon offset companies don't fund university labs, and I doubt Gore's directed much of his own money towards research, either (though I guess it's possible he paid some scientists consultation fees for the production of the movie).

In short, none of those sources of profit--and there are indeed people profiting off of this--are credible sources of scientific bias.