Dr. I haven't had time to check the links (will soon just not tonight).  Is that where you got the figures for the money in your article?

Again, I know a lot of money is going into AGW.  Whenever science because politicalized that is when a monster is made.

...and that's the problem. Too many people believe science is absolute, and that may be true in some cases, but for the most part it is subject to the same politics, greed, and corruption as any other sector of society. It is and has been manipulated throughout history, to suit the needs of a few.

Most of the figures can be derived from multiple sources, but I wanted to spread the references out to as many sources as possible in order to stop some from saying they were all right wing mouthpieces (some still will say that). 

When I started checking this (from a comment made elsewhere about the skeptics being paid off by anti-AGW sources - I beleive it was MumbleFratz that made that lie), I was shocked at what I learned!  We think of grants and such (the life blood of scientists) as being the "$500k for Squirrell love research" level, but I found that the money here is in the BILLIONS!  And the number doing the research is relatively very small.  So it means that the core climatologist behind the AGW push are getting very well paid (not counting Algore's slush fund).

I disagree.  Sciense is absolute (and very hard to go from observation to hypothesis to theory to fact).  But SCIENTISTS are humans and as we see, susceptible to the same graft and greed as anyone else.

The SCIENCE of climatology is as sound as any other science.  The SCIENTISTS have abandoned science for the almighty dollar (pound, euro or yen) and corrupted the data to fit an agenda that has no relation to science.

It's actually not.  By definition, it cannot use standard scientific methods to test its hypotheses.  It is set of glorified video games (computer runs using various combinations & permutations of 'What if?' scenarios) which attempt to predict the future.  So far, I'm less than impressed with climatology's predictive capabilities.

That's not to say it is a total waste of time, it's just that when you see those full-color Mercator map computer graphics of what's going to happen on the Discovery Channel, they show you (typically) only one scenario.

That's what I believe. If it were cut and dry, their would be no debate.

Well, I guess put that way I agree. What I meant is that if they were following standard scientific principals, the science could be legitimate.  Not that what they are doing in any way resembles science.  I think the predicitive models problems are with the scientists again, not the science.  The science of the Big Bang cannot really be tested iether, but at least they are going about it the right way - testing the parts they can, and looking for more clues.  Climatologists (the core AGW group) have stopped looking and starting stonewalling everyone else.

The funny part, even scientific studies that for the most part are accepted as fact (if not actually being fact in the scientific sense) have not stopped, ended or squelched debate.  There is still debate about the big Bang, about evolution, about dark matter.  It may not be the debate of either or, but there is still healthy debate.  In the "science" of AGW, you will find very few pro AGW (if any) people that will even acknowledge debate about anything related to the subject, even though it is not out of the hypothesis stage.

I've been trying to tell people all along that it is all about money...big money. Many just dismiss that as nonsense. Of course that tells me they are simply either too stupid to understand or simply refuse to see the truth because it may force them to rethink their ideas about it.

Or a 3rd alternative - they already know the truth, but it goes against their religion and/or agenda.  The Greens may know the truth, but they see it as a way to advance their agenda.  Liberal power brokers know the truth, but it goes against their religion (they created the religion after all).

I have been reading SciAm lately.  A waste of time for anything science, but it is informative to see how the religious are arguing the issue.

In his latest book BREATHLESS, Dean Koontz has an exchange between a scientist and some laymen who have made an unexplainable discovery.  The scientist says that whenever a scientist tells you the science is settled, he has stopped being a scientist and become a politician.  He pointed out that most of what mankind knew to be fact 2000 years ago has been proven to be wrong...and in one or two hundred years from now there is no telling how much of what we "know" now will be proven balderdash.  Science is full of little errors over the span of man's existence.  The skull of the missing link turned out to be the kneecap of an elephant, recently it was discovered that the method used to measure distances in space was based on a flawed formula and everything had to be recalculated.  It was once common practice to put leeches on sick people (I know, they are doing it again), The Earth was once the center of the universe.  In the orient, many people still won't sit in a chair that is warm from its last occupant, they believe disease spreads that way.  I am just shooting from the hip here, with a little research you could fill up pages with idiocy that was once the standard of science.  So with a track record like that, what makes scientists so infallible now?

Exactly!

I think the vast majority of scientists know they know not, and are constantly searching for answers.  Scientists are just people and so when they get an idea in their head, they try to run it to ground.  That is natural.  The real scientist are those that when faced with contradictory evidence, admit the flaw in their original thinking and then try to come up with a new idea.  The politicians just ignore the new evidence, vilify the founders of it, and maintain their infalibility.

The root of real science is the simple expression "I don't know".

And the willingness to state that.

But deniers are in it for the money.