Chris Mooney received taxpayer dollars via the NSF to teach communication tools. Mooney's own favorite tool seems to be the label 'Conspiracy Theory'

How is one set of views a "conspiracy theory" and another set of views, such as Mr. Mooney's own which requires billions of taxpayer dollars, "not a conspiracy theory?"

2/27/12, "James Inhofe Takes the Climate Conspiracy Theory to New Heights—While His Home State Reels from Record Heat," Chris Mooney, Desmog blog

US taxpayer dollars went to Chris Mooney last month for the purpose of helping scientists learn how to communicate their message ("Science: Becoming the Messenger," NSF.gov). I don't know what he taught the scientists at the NSF seminar, but his recurring communications tool seems to be ridicule, ie. labeling a view other than his own a 'CONSPIRACY THEORY,' and a person who 'hints' at such views a 'CONSPIRACY THEORIST.' Why aren't Mr. Mooney's expensive ideas conspiracy theories? How does he get to be better? As far as the porn-challenged NSF, it has already admitted it's unable to carry out the purpose for which it was established.

Would the angry Mr. Mooney ridicule Nigel Purvis as a conspiracy theorist?

"Ironically, the ‘cap and trade’ idea that underwrites the global carbon market was originally the brainchild of US Republicans [via George Bush #1]. But this changed because of what one senior US climate negotiator at Kyoto described as a collection of “toxic” ingredients.

“There are three issues –

constraining industry, sending money abroad, and strengthening the UN –

that are inflammatory on their own right,”

Nigel Purvis, a State Department official under the Clinton and Bush administrations, said on the phone from Washington....Nigel Purvis, now the president of the Climate Advisers* consultancy in Washington."...

----------------------------

"In 2008, Mr. Purvis served as a senior adviser on climate diplomacy to the Obama-Biden campaign." He is founder and president of Climate Advisers.

-------------------------------------------------

Is Nigel Purvis a "conspiracy theorist" for saying the "climate" issue is about those 3 things?

=================



Sign outside Nov. 2010 NSF seminar, the Jan. 2012 offering to feature Chris Mooney.

========================

1/13/12, "US Republicans stir transatlantic tensions over climate change," EurActiv

=======================

Dec. 2011, "Science: Becoming the Messenger," NSF.gov

---------------------------

Sports Illustrated cover, March 12, 2007, using Major League Baseball to sell global warming:



The above wouldn't be a "conspiracy theory" or alarmism of any kind I guess according to Mr. Mooney. ed.

--------------------------------
12/17/09, "At Copenhagen global warming talks, Clinton pledges US support for $100 billion fund," Reuters, A. Doyle, via CS Monitor



Dec. 2009, Hillary Clinton in Copenhagen pledging US taxpayer dollars. reuters




via Tom Nelson