Not 97% but .3% of Climatologists agree.

Quote from futurecurrents:

It says nothing about me, but it shows you are stubborn, ignorant, stupid, ideologically crazed, morons. No-one will ever change that. It's sad.
More...
Earlier today you said "You guys are such gullible idiots."
(Just not gullible enough for a simpleton heat & air installer to manipulate)

But NOW we're "stubborn, ignorant, stupid, ideologically crazed, morons."?

Given our new attributes or shall we say "progress" in such a short time. Would we now meet the definition of a "progressive"?
 
Quote from gwb-trading:

It's time, once again, to discuss Skeptical Science's primary funding source, Al Gore, and the hundreds of millions that he made via his global warming hedge funds.

Generation Investment Management (GIM) was co-founded in 2004 by David Blood and Al Gore. Website - http://www.generationim.com/

Generation Global Equity Fund has $6 Billion in assets under management in early 2011 and is said to return more than 50% during the 12 months ending in March 2010.
http://www.insidermonkey.com/hedge-fund/generation+investment+management/146/

Filings indicate that for an non-operational role, Al Gore gets 0.5% of assets under management each year and 5% of the profits. This amounts $30 Million each year in asset under management fees and an average of $60 Million each year in performance fees over the life of the fund (it has had an average of a 19% return). Of course, these fees have built up over time as the fund grew after inception in 2004.

The fund was established in 2004 before he departed on his "Inconvenient Truth" film and tour in 2006 with the obvious intent of creating a scare that would drive money to the fund and it's carbon credit trading schemes. IMDb - Inconvenient Truth: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0497116/

In 2008, Al Gore invests $35 million with the Capricorn Investment Group. "That’s a big wad of cash for someone who reported barely $2 million in assets in 2000, when his job as vice president came to an end."
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2008/03/06/al-gores-big-investment/?_r=0

Al Gore’s Inconvenient Loot
http://riehlworldview.com/2007/03/al_gores_inconv.html

Al Gore has thrived as green-tech investor
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/...02345_1_clean-energy-clean-tech-firms-al-gore

"Just before leaving public office in 2001, Gore reported assets of less than $2 million; today, his wealth is estimated at $100 million." (Actually other news reports indicate his wealth in 2012 was over $250 Million before getting $100M more in his recent Current TV deal.)

You can make the case that Al Gore is a very savvy business person who has generated out-sized returns for investors and signficant wealth for himself. The reality is his fund can more properly be described as "Green Cronyism". Since 2008, most of the firms invested in by the fund had funding from the Obama administration. Of the 11 companies he mentioned in his 2008 slide show (e.g. Iberdrola Renovables), nine received or directly benefited from stimulus or clean energy funding.

The Obama administration also supported the carbon credit trading scheme that makes a significant amount of the fund's trading profits.

Bottom Line: Al Gore creates a hedge fund where he has no day-to-day operational role and then pushes the "Inconvenient Truth" to drive money for the fund. It is hard to made the case that Al Gore is driven by personal charity, true environmentalism (how about all those jet rides) or any type of real belief about 'global warming' --- it is all about making money... something he has been very successful at since leaving office.
More...


Bullshit, SS's funding does NOT come primarily from Al Gore. That's total horseshit.

And who the hell cares what Al Gore does except for fucked-up right wing nutjobs? It has NOTHING to with the factual and overwhelming science of AGW, you idiot.

Al Gore has devoted much of life to get the word out about AGW and he puts his money where it can do the best work. It's not because he manipulating a hoax so he can profit. You're an idiot.

Skeptical Science is citizen funded and staffed. In fact, I just donated $20 to it.

Skeptical Science is affiliated with no political, business, or charitable entity.[20] The site does not contain banner ads and is funded entirely by Cook himself, with reader donations.[1] All regular and guest authors contribute strictly voluntarily.
 
Quote from Lucrum:

Earlier today you said "You guys are such gullible idiots."
(Just not gullible enough for a simpleton heat & air installer to manipulate)

But NOW we're "stubborn, ignorant, stupid, ideologically crazed, morons."?

Given our new attributes or shall we say "progress" in such a short time. Would we now meet the definition of a "progressive"?
More...

You're even more useless than gwb and jerm. You are a moron with no substance at all. Only cheap pot shots

You are now on ignore you detestable ignorant douchebag.
 
Quote from gwb-trading:

So answer the question - Are you part of Skeptical Science's "crusher crew" whose sole intent is to "drown out" those who do not accept their alarmist positions? Simple one word answer - Yes or No.
More...

Here's your answer.



























































































































































































Go fuck yourself.
 
Quote from futurecurrents:
11-25-13 09:41 PM
You're even more useless than gwb and jerm. You are a moron with no substance at all. Only cheap pot shots

You are now on ignore you detestable ignorant douchebag.
More...

:D :D
 
Real pollution (not ‘carbon’ pollution) increases storm clouds
Posted on November 26, 2013 by Anthony Watts
From the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory: A common theme among climate alarmists is that the wrongly named ‘carbon pollution’ aka carbon dioxide, increases the frequency and intensity of storms. Observational data show that NOT to be true, and this new study shows why real pollution (aerosols) results in larger, deeper and longer lasting storm clouds, leading to colder days and warmer nights – Anthony



http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/...-pollution-increases-storm-clouds/#more-98178
 
CO2 causing Increased Cooling of Atmosphere

As demonstrated in Rescue from the Climate Saviors, increasing levels of CO2 and other IR-active gases in the atmosphere increase the natural cooling system of the earth. IR-active gases do not supply additional heating power to the earth and are not a cause of “global warming”. IR-active gases do not act “like a blanket” but rather “like a sunshade”. They keep a part of the solar energy away from the earth’s surface and act to cool the earth: 70% of the entire cooling power originates from these molecules. An increase in concentration only serves to increase the cooling efficiency, and now there is additional empirical evidence. A new paper shows that increased CO2 concentrations have increased the cooling efficiency of the upper atmosphere, and in combination with the 2008 solar minimum, resulted in the lowest upper atmospheric density recorded in 43 years.

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/06/co2-causing-increased-cooling-of.html


also note...

The Sun was unusually quiet during the prolonged solar minimum of 2007-2009, and the research team found that the associated reduction in solar UV heating can partly explain the reduction in density. Increasing concentrations of CO2 near the Earth's surface are likely making their way into the upper atmosphere and are thus increasing the upper atmosphere cooling efficiency. However, it is not yet clear whether the combination of reduced solar UV heating and enhanced CO2 cooling can fully account for the occurrence of the anomalously low thermospheric density, and the researchers suggested that changes in upper atmospheric chemistry and composition may have also contributed to the record-low density.
 
And still....we have this data.


Co2ClimateChangeAndFossilFuel.jpg
 
Quote from futurecurrents:

And still....we have this data.


Co2ClimateChangeAndFossilFuel.jpg
More...

So once again you are posting the same old fabricated chart over and over again. You don't have anything new to contribute, eh? I guess the your part in the organizated effort to "drown out" people posting factual and relevant information simply involves posting the same old tired nonsense continually.

So answer the question - Are you part of Skeptical Science's "crusher crew" whose sole intent is to "drown out" those who do not accept their alarmist positions? Simple one word answer - Yes or No.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top