A few items to point out on the anthropogenic global warming front today.

First is this article earlier this week from Ars Technica (which normally has very good tech news, but when it comes to AGW is a cheerleader for the alarmists) which makes the case that scientists pushing the idea that global warming is largely human-caused and certain to be catastrophic can’t have their financial motives questioned because Wall Street bankers make more money.

Yes, that’s an appropriate reductio ad absurdum for the article’s argument.

Deep in the comments, one known as Putrid Polecat pointed out some of the problems with both this particular article and Ars Technica’s advocacy.

There are a number of logical fallacies in the article/blog-post/op-ed.

Fallacy 1. Groups opposing AGW have a financial incentive to oppose AGW, therefore proponents of AGW cannot have a financial incentive (or incentive to hold onto university posts).
Counterexample: A homeopathic medicine salesman makes less money than a pharmacist. Therefore, the homeopathic medicine salesman cannot have a financial incentive.

Fallacy 2. More money is circulating in the corporate world, therefore, members of the public research world do not have a financial incentive. Counterexample: More money is circulating in the fossil fuel industry than the solar energy industry. Therefore, members of the solar energy industry do not have a financial incentive.

Fallacy 3. Government funding of climate scientists has decreased since the 1990s, therefore, climate scientists cannot have a financial incentive.
Even though funding may have decreased, that still does not mean that there isn't sufficient possibility for remuneration. Counterexample: Joe's salary was cut form 100k to 70k, therefore, Joe does not have a financial incentive to do his job.

Fallacy 4: Financial remuneration is the only form of ulterior motive a climate scientist can have.

After a typically dismissive response from Ars’ resident AGW acolyte comparing climate science to the Hubble space telescope, Polecat responds with a brief but excellent summary of some of the serious problems the AGW community has failed to address.

Let's not compare the tangible benefit that Hubble brings, based on physics, to the dire predictions of a soft science. The errors in measurement (heat island effects, statistical manipulation based on preference (elimination of data points)), unequal coverage of the earth's surface with measuring stations, differences in instrumentation quality between measuring stations, etc.) cannot be compared to the Hubble's discoveries, or for that matter, geoscience, which can determine the epicenter of a quake, find new oil/coal deposits, predict volcanic eruptions in the near term, and much more.

Out of Germany we get bad news for all of you planning on taking a cruise through the Northwest Passage in coming years—it’s not gonna happen.

We examine the recovery of Arctic sea ice from prescribed ice-free summer conditions in simulations of 21st century climate in an atmosphere–ocean general circulation model. We find that ice extent recovers typically within two years. The excess oceanic heat that had built up during the ice-free summer is rapidly returned to the atmosphere during the following autumn and winter, and then leaves the Arctic partly through increased longwave emission at the top of the atmosphere and partly through reduced atmospheric heat advection from lower latitudes. Oceanic heat transport does not contribute significantly to the loss of the excess heat.

Our results suggest that anomalous loss of Arctic sea ice during a single summer is reversible, as the ice–albedo feedback is alleviated by large-scale recovery mechanisms. Hence, hysteretic threshold behavior (or a “tipping point”) is unlikely to occur during the decline of Arctic summer sea-ice cover in the 21st century. [emphasis added]

Finally we get this great back-and-forth in a Senate committee where the AGW-types try to fight-back, but gets slapped down nonetheless.