luvdemshrooms said:

Perhaps you'll like Forbes better.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/17/that-scientific-global-warming-consensus-not/

Quote:

So where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.

Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”.

That anything-but-scientific survey asked two questions. The first: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”  Few would be expected to dispute this…the planet began thawing out of the “Little Ice Age” in the middle 19th century, predating the Industrial Revolution. (That was the coldest period since the last real Ice Age ended roughly 10,000 years ago.)

The second question asked: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” So what constitutes “significant”? Does “changing” include both cooling and warming… and for both “better” and “worse”? And which contributions…does this include land use changes, such as agriculture and deforestation?

---

Consensus ≠ 75

---

Patlal said:

Dude, Forbes is the heart of wall street... That's the last source I would believe when it comes to a scientific concept that would take profit out of corporation's pocket

---

Right. You don't believe it because... you don't believe it.

Patlal said:

Science is truth. Its about time people start understanding that science beats religion, profit and politics. It trumps everything.

---

Quote:

Also

Quote:

Because it is registered as a charity, the GWPF is not legally required to report its sources of funding,[13] and Peiser has declined to reveal its funding sources, citing privacy concerns. Peiser said GWPF does not receive funding "from people with links to energy companies or from the companies themselves."[14] The foundation has rejected freedom of information (FoI) requests to disclose its funding sources on at least four different occasions. The judge ruling on the latest FoI request, Alison McKenna, said that the GWPF was not sufficiently influential to merit forcing them to disclose the source of the £50,000 that was originally provided to establish the organization.[15]

---

And also

Quote:

In March 2012, The Guardian revealed that it had uncovered emails in which Michael Hintze, founder of the hedge fund CQS and a major donor to the UK Conservative Party, disclosed having donated to GWPF; the previous October, Hintze had been at the center of a funding scandal that led to the resignation of then-Secretary of State for Defence Liam Fox and the dismissal of Hintze's then-charity adviser, Oliver Hylton.[19]

Chris Huhne, former UK Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change attacked Lord Lawson's influential climate sceptic think-tank

---

---

luvdemshrooms said:

Patlal said:

Dude, Forbes is the heart of wall street... That's the last source I would believe when it comes to a scientific concept that would take profit out of corporation's pocket

---

Right. You don't believe it because... you don't believe it.

---

NotTheDevil said:

But there is evidence that temperatures and greenhouse gas concentrations are changing.

---

Quote:

Which points to human-caused climate change.

---

zappaisgod said:

luvdemshrooms said:

Patlal said:

Dude, Forbes is the heart of wall street... That's the last source I would believe when it comes to a scientific concept that would take profit out of corporation's pocket

---

Right. You don't believe it because... you don't believe it.

---

Patlal has chosen his priesthood

---

Quote:

Despite all this hedging, the numbers still tell a powerful story. It’s just not always clear what that story is. In Davis Strait, between Greenland and Baffin Island, the polar bear population has grown from 900 animals in the late 1970s to around 2,100 today. In Foxe Basin — a portion of northern Hudson Bay — a population that was estimated to be 2,300 in the early 2000s now stands at 2,570. And in specific areas of western Hudson Bay, the most-studied, most-photographed group of bears on Earth seems to have been on a slow but steady increase since in the 1970s.

---

Patlal said:

Dude, Forbes is the heart of wall street... That's the last source I would believe when it comes to a scientific concept that would take profit out of corporation's pocket

---

Patlal said:

I'm not gonna try and argue something proven with you guys. You guys are clearly stupid on the subject and you're letting your opinions take over, then you visit I'mright.com.....  I can't fix you guys, but you know, you guys are older, you can't change, so I forgive you. Its not your fault

---

Patlal said:

luvdemshrooms said:

How disingenuous of you. The 97% nonsense has been debunked multiple times.

http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2014/09/Warming-consensus-and-it-critics1.pdf

Quote:

Andrew Montford, the author of the briefing note, said: “It has now been shown beyond doubt that the claims of a 97% consensus on climate change are at best misleading, perhaps grossly so, and possibly deliberately so. It’s high time policymakers stopped citing this appalling study.”

---

---

Interference.

Stop being caught up in it.

Science is truth. Its about time people start understanding that science beats religion, profit and politics. It trumps everything.

Also

Quote:

Because it is registered as a charity, the GWPF is not legally required to report its sources of funding,[13] and Peiser has declined to reveal its funding sources, citing privacy concerns. Peiser said GWPF does not receive funding "from people with links to energy companies or from the companies themselves."[14] The foundation has rejected freedom of information (FoI) requests to disclose its funding sources on at least four different occasions. The judge ruling on the latest FoI request, Alison McKenna, said that the GWPF was not sufficiently influential to merit forcing them to disclose the source of the £50,000 that was originally provided to establish the organization.[15]

---

And also

Quote:

In March 2012, The Guardian revealed that it had uncovered emails in which Michael Hintze, founder of the hedge fund CQS and a major donor to the UK Conservative Party, disclosed having donated to GWPF; the previous October, Hintze had been at the center of a funding scandal that led to the resignation of then-Secretary of State for Defence Liam Fox and the dismissal of Hintze's then-charity adviser, Oliver Hylton.[19]

Chris Huhne, former UK Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change attacked Lord Lawson's influential climate sceptic think-tank

---

Cut through the bullshit. I know its hard for conservatives fossils to change its mind on something no matter how much truth is bombarded on you. But Fucking do it. The truth is like anal sex. At first it hurts, but after a while apparently it becomes very pleasurable.

---

Patlal said:

Nah man. Not believing the truth. Its stupid. There's no other words for it, sorry

---

Patlal said:

Nah man. Not believing the truth. Its stupid. There's no other words for it, sorry

---