Spy vs Spy

This story at desmogblog reminds me of that classic Mad magazine cartoon.

That’s because the CIA today is treating climate change seriously, while one of its supposed former spooks is chasing shadows. I say supposed, because what self-respecting spy goes around publicly advertising himself as a “CIA counter-terrorism operations expert”?

2 Responses to “Spy vs Spy”

  1. harrywr2 says:

    “That’s because the CIA today is treating climate change seriously,”
     
    The CIA has a budget like every other agency. The heads of all agencies  count votes in congress.
     
    If one reads military blogs, somewhere a few years ago someone who was working on coal oil as a jet fuel ran into congressional insistence that it somehow needed to have a higher ethanol content.
    The result-
    http://biodiesel-news.com/index.php/2010/03/25/accelergy-usaf-to-evaluate-camelina-liquid-coal-biojet-fuel-mix/
    Accelergy will use its coal-biomass-to-liquids technology at a pilot facility under construction at the Energy and Environmental Research Center (EERC) University of North Dakota.
    Does the USAF believe in Climate Change or is the only way they could get funding for the Coal-JP8 program involve mixing in some ‘biofuels’?
    The only statement can be made about the CIA co-operating with Climate Scientists is that the CIA believes it is in it’s interest to co-operate.

    We have no evidence as to why the CIA believes it is in their interest.
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     

  2. Steven Sullivan says:

    That clueless ‘CIA’ idiot seems to think that getting $50 million in grant money means the PI takes home $50 million personally, or is free to spend $50 million on whatever he/she wants.  Or that such monies would be ‘recovered’ under the whistleblower act, in the case of a scientific grant.
     
    I hope whichever Penn State faculty get this nutbar’s letters forwards them to the police with all due haste.  In the meantime, Mann and/or PSU should look into sueing the sh*t out of him.
     
    As as for harrywr2’s scenario, there is of course an alternate explanation:  scientific advisors to the CIA believe that the evidence for AGW is compelling and worthy of serious concern.
     
    Nah, that’s *crazy talk*.
     
     
     

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.