Again, I saw nothing at your URL negative about Exxon. Your claim that three energy industry executives make more money than all the climate science research i

Again, I saw nothing at your URL negative about Exxon. Your claim that three energy industry executives make more money than all the climate science research is likely false: A research grant in science to a research professor goes for about $500,000 a year. The university grabs about 60% for 'overhead' (help support the English department, etc.). The rest covers or helps cover the prof, travel, photocopying, lab equipment, grad students, etc. Add up 100 such profs and have $50 million a year. But nearly all the Fortune 500 CEOs are just hired managers and, surprisingly, are not so well paid if only because typically they don't last more then 5 years as CEO. So, maybe they make $10 million a year, for a few years; then they don't go start again in the mail room and, instead, just retire. After the taxes, considering how few years they were CEO and long they might continue to live, a guy who owns, say, 10 McDonald's can do better if only because he can keep his business for decades. So, for your three CEOs you are up to maybe $30 million which is less than the $50 million for the profs. Sure, a given CEO might some year cash in some stock options and make $50 million, but that's a one-time thing. Instead of such salaries, the big bucks are from owning something not worth much and then making it valuable. Why? Because only a tiny fraction of the people can evaluate the tree that might grow from a seed or help such a seed grow to a tree. E.g., relevant here on HN, there's hardly a single venture partner anywhere in the US who will even try to evaluate the chances of a particular project becoming another Google. Instead, for any investment amount enough to support a few people for a few years, say, over $1 million, they will invest in something simple such as 'traction' and do so on the basis if the track record of 'traction'. For 'another Google', they will be happy if it happened but will make no effort toward that goal. So, entrepreneurs such as discussed on HN some hedge fund managers, especially J. Simons, can make much more. On all of Wall Street, there is exactly one person who understands what Renaissance Technologies does and has good reason to know why it makes money: Simons. Period. But, that some oil company executives are making money says nothing about global warming or really that Exxon is funding FUD. A lot of the global warming hysteria is from stimulating the desire of people to have a religion. With the major organized religions in decline, Communism, global warming, etc. can find some fertile ground. There is also general paranoia such as made the morality plays popular going way back in the history of 'story telling'. "All this said, though, perhaps the bigger question is: what would convince you that global warming is a big problem and that it's being caused by people?" Right, that's the bigger question. The answer is simple and the same for global warming, climate change, dying of anthrax, having Yellowstone blow again and put a layer of ash 10 feet thick over much of the US, have the earth hit by an asteroid, etc. Same for all of them: Look for good data and good arguments, especially good science. E.g., for the asteroids, yes, the various belts of asteroids are unstable so at any time a bump can cause an asteroid to leave the belt and head for earth. Right. So, for a fairly good first cut, dangerous asteroids will arrive like a Poisson process. But we have a very good estimate of the arrival time: The rate is less than once per 65 million years. So, for the next few years, the probability is tiny. And that's why I don't worry about asteroids. For anthrax, we have good public health data and we understand anthrax. So, for my life in the burbs, no worries, mate. Etc. For global warming and climate change, the data is total BS, and the science is worse. So, flush it. No worries, mate. Easy enough. Done. For you, again, relax.