The guy has a history of taking money in exchange for talking about how great CO2 is for the environment (not even his field ) as long as those ‘donations’ can be kept quiet.
What exactly is wrong with that?
Are you saying that his opinion on CO2 was formed in order to cash in on money from oil companies? Or could it be that he had this opinion first and was then able to make money off of it?
Furthermore, I don’t see how certain aspects of climatology would not be in his field considering that he is a physicist. My background in nuclear engineering. I know enough about radiation to see that most “climatologists” don’t seem to really understand electromagnetic radiation. Yet they have no problem tossing around the term infrared to the public as if it’s just this one specific thing and not a spectrum.
Also, I would take whatever was written in The Nation with a grain of salt. Doubtful you are getting the whole truth from that agenda-filled progressive publication.
“...The guy has a history of taking money in exchange for talking...”
Hmmm... let’s extend that logic:
Do you think there is a HISTORY of Nye getting paid to be on these programs?
Or, do you think there is a HISTORY of Algore (perchance one of your heroes?) getting paid to give his speeches?
And why, exactly, would CO2 *not* be good for the environment? Do you know what would happen if the "global warming" alarmists successfully found a way to remove CO2 from the air?
CO2 is essential for life. Every living thing is composed of carbon-based molecules, which are made from CO2.