I have no connection with Exxon or anything in climate studies. Instead, my interests are well represented here on HN. I have never gotten even one penny in research grants from anything having to do with climate in any sense. So, the claim of the Web site at your URL that Exxon is funding 'skeptics' is irrelevant to me.

There's nothing significant against Exxon at that Web site, certainly nothing like your "organized disinformation campaign".

Maybe Exxon funded some 'climate science', although the Web site gave no evidence.

Well, how'd the whole 'global warming' thing get started anyway? Sure: VP Al Guru told the NSF, etc. to fund his buddies for 'climate alarmism'. That's how the 'closed community' of 'climate science' alarmists got started: They all reviewed each other's research papers and grant proposals, and they all knew that there was only one source of money, Al Guru, and that that source wanted only one answer -- human CO2 raising temperatures. Now that they are on the back of that tiger, and could not have a career in science anywhere else, they have to just keep riding that tiger.

But your URL has alarmist nonsense about extreme weather -- droughts heat waves, etc. There's essentially no connection between such things and the arguments about global warming, at least not for decades or centuries.

So, the increases in temperature over the past few decades are so small that they are tough to measure or to show an increase, but even without showing an increase in temperature we are supposed to believe that the increase, too small to measure, is causing massive climate 'change' now, as with the tornadoes this spring? Total reeking BS.

But when the predictions for global warming clearly didn't happen, there was a memo to talk about climate 'change'. While global 'warming' can be characterized by just average temperature, say, over the planet, over a year, measured by, say, satellite, and while some temperature records go back hundreds of years and some temperature evidence, say, ice core data, goes back hundreds of thousands of years, climate 'change' is MUCH more difficult to evaluate, e.g., compare with the past. While the past temperature record is nothing like what we can measure today, the climate 'change' record is much worse. So, the climate change screamers can keep screaming, as for the tornadoes this spring, without much comparison with the past.

For the funding corrupting science, f'get about Exxon and concentrate on Al Guru.

That is, the LESS data they have, the MORE screaming they are free to do. We just should refuse to listen.

Besides, the usual media, ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, PBS, just LOVE the morality play of evil humans doing transgressions and causing retribution and the drama of tornadoes. Grab'm by the gut, and their eyeballs will be sure to follow, and then get the ad revenue. Those media outlets are in the ad business and will push anything at all, any sewage -- crime, scandal, blood, danger -- that can be turned into drama to grab people by the heart, the gut, and below the belt.

E.g., what was the frequency of tornadoes in the area of the present state of Kansas each year over the past 400 years? Not a chance of getting good data. And, heck, the media won't even report such frequency data over the past, say, decade. Why not? The data would show no significant change, have no drama, and would kill the made up story with drama.

So, the tornadoes this spring can be screamed to be from 'climate change' from evil humans, as we have heard.

You are spouting just alarmist nonsense.

The data for human caused significant global warming is BS; for climate change, much worse. You have no serious evidence.

You didn't take my advice just to relax and f'get about Al Guru.

How much are YOU getting paid?