The 95% consensus is now just 43%
- Thread starter WeToddDid2
- Start date
You have been insulting people for years on this forum while re-posting the same material over & over hundreds of time - never anything new. Obviously you are not capable of having a rational discussion about climate change - nor are you capable of interpreting scientific data... much less read the sources that someone posts if you disagree with it - yet you spew the same rebutted talking points continuously.
Don't want to be insulted? Don't be a lying deluded douchebag. Simple. I only insult those who deserve it. You richly do.
1. You made a specific claim earlier, that "hundreds of scientists" stated that their papers were misclassified, misquoted, etc. Every link you provide ends up quoting the same 8 or so scientists, nowhere near the "hundreds" you asserted earlier. Please source this number.
2. Regarding the consensus question, I agree that getting absolute consensus at a level of 97% is difficult with humans. However, I would guess that for something like say, gravity, we certainly have a (near) 100% consensus among not only scientists but among the general public.
Climate Scientists, as a body, tend very strongly to agree that AGW exists and is effecting life on this planet. There is, of course, disagreement on the degree of the human influence.
3. My next question for you is this: Why do you fight so hard against the idea of AGW? Personally, I find AGW very concerning and downright inconvenient (thank you, Mr. Gore), and I would LOVE if some scientist or group of scientist could disprove it. But none have yet done so and as a responsible adult, I cannot pretend it is not happening.
(I numbered my responses in an effort to keep the conversation on track)
I will be polite and attempt to answer your questions above.
1. As noted earlier over 300 scientists have come out stating their papers are mis-classified - most have multiple papers. You are welcome to go through the many articles on google and create an entire list. After you have done so - please feel free to post the entire list of scientists to this forum. Each article outlines a few dissenting scientists - there are many of them out there. You wanted a number - the number is currently at 300 and increasing.
2. The actual surveys (many of them posted in these forums) in recent years show a consensus on AGW among scientists of a mere 53% and dropping each year. Why do politicians and advocates only quote the fabricated "97% Consensus" figure which is solely supported by only two items - by the Doran survey (77 out of 79 scientists - when pruned down from over 3000 responders), and the Cook evaluation of scientific papers which fails on many levels. Why are the many other surveys on global warming ignored? Well let me answer, it does not support their politics.
3. The reason to fight against AGW is because it undermines the integrity of science for political purposes and drives failed public policy which misspends money. "Climate Change" is a $1.5 Trillion per year industry built around a problem that does not exist. A far greater danger to mankind is natural global cooling (which is around the corner). There are many obvious environmental issues where "green" money could be better spent such as pollution, hard-particle pollution from smokestacks (not CO2), coastal fisheries, limiting development in ecologically critical areas, and preservation of natural lands via parks, etc.
Sadly many of the "green" initiatives I support including solar, wind, micro-grid, back-metering, electric cars, smoke-stack scrubbers, and preserving rivers/coastal areas are undermined by AGW - causing the real problems not be focused on. Imagine if the $1.5 Trillion per year were used to address these problems plus the issues facing people such food, clean water, shelter, and medical care world-wide.
"Climate Change" is merely a money-making grab for hedge funds (Al Gore's GIM as an example), consulting firms, and government grant receivers - all of them driving flawed science to support the money in their pocket.
Around 2040 or so - AGW will be viewed as the largest scientific fraud of the previous century.
Since you brought up Al Gore - let's outline his hedge fund activity again...
It's time to discuss the hundreds of millions that Al Gore 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/
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 significant 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 (Note that Al Gore is upset with the lukewarm support from the Obama Administration for a carbon-market. He hoped to drive most of his profits from this, but now had to turn to crony-capitalism investment in politically-connected green companies).
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.
It's time to discuss the hundreds of millions that Al Gore 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/
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 significant 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 (Note that Al Gore is upset with the lukewarm support from the Obama Administration for a carbon-market. He hoped to drive most of his profits from this, but now had to turn to crony-capitalism investment in politically-connected green companies).
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.
Last edited:
you will are unworthy of direct response going forward. you contribute nothing but troll detritus.
Ha ha MONCKTON!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOL... He's perhaps the only person on earth more fucked up than you are!!! Maybe you like him because he looks like you? lol
Yup, you're a complete fucking moron. Reaaaalllly stupid. I really can't call you a liar. You're just an idiot.
David S - this is what is passed off as rational discourse by AGW pushers.
This is why rational, educated, intelligent skeptics on ET have very little tolerance of Climate Change advocates in these forums.