Comments closed but I wanted to address a few of your major errors.

there are scientists all over the world who make an excellent living relative to their populations;

So? The vast bulk of climatology research is done in Western nations, because that's where the research infrastructure is. There's not much climatology being done in Ethiopia, for instance.

and 'grants' is just a word, use 'funding' instead.

Fine, "funding", but I'm telling you what the rules are. You can't take the funding and spend it on a Ferrari. You can't pay yourself out of it. It doesn't make your salary any larger. There's zero to be gained, personally, by a scientist seeking grants except the opportunity to do what they love - scientific research into a field. And how could someone simultaneously work in a field and consider committing fraud in it? It beggars belief.

a good example would be that around 6% of all European VC money was in the "sustainable industry" sector in 2006, up from 2% the year before, and next to nothing five years ago.

Is that part of the climate change "movement", or part of the energy sector? It seems like you have to broaden your terms considerably to connect climate science to huge stacks of cash.

And that's irrelevant to funding in the sciences.

Water vapor's halflife is irrelevant;

Nonsense. Water vapor's halflife in the atmosphere is proof that it can't be a significant effect on warming on its own. The halflife is so short that the atmosphere's water vapor returns to equilibrium in days.

That means there's no way to force climate warming by the addition of water vapor - whatever excess you try to add to the system leaves almost immediately as rain. It's just not there long enough to be a contributor to warming.

That's why its left out of the respectable climate models, not because of%2Proxy-Connection: keep-alive Cache-Control: max-age=0 22forgetfulness." The only reason anyone would even consider doing something as transparently stupid as to pretend that water vapor forces warming is to obfuscate the issue, like you've been doing.

So you're happy condemning the human race to resource constraints for ever?

What universe do you live in where the alternative was ever possible? It's a finite universe. The resources have always been finite. Better we accept that, and learn to live within those resource limitations, than run headlong into them unprepared.

Civilizations have ended that way. Easter Island, for example.

I'd rather go down in flames, or better yet, survive with style; get off this rock and look for resources elsewhere.

It's great that you want to burn your candle at both ends, but do you have to do the same with mine? I'd like to use the light to get so