Try reading this on oil companies PERCENT of NET profit. You cite the politically left think tank, and strong supporters of green energy. I don't exactly consider them an "independent" source of information. My source is sheer numbers comparison in the table that shows the major oil companies make 6.2 cents net profit out of every dollar of revenue. That places them 114 out of 125 major industries.
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2011/05/oil" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... t-215.html
I read it back when it came out in 2011 and the figure is 114 out of 215 not 125. And it supports EXACTLY what I'm telling you: They can't take another hit toward their already thin profit margin. Read the article. They can't tolerate another windfall profit tax, GREEN ENERGY TAX or ANYTHING that hits their already thinned profit margin. I'll say it none more time: They have the MOST to lose in the global warming card game and are willing to use a LARGE amount of their immense earnings to maintain their position. I read my quarterlies on ALL my investments - including the ones in my energy portfolio. I sincerely hope you do too. I know what their profit margins as well as their dividends are as well as their expenditures towards maintaining their interests. Of course you can try to cite that as coming from "politically left think tank" but I assure you it's just raw data - readily available to yo or anyone.
As for publishing, who makes the decision whether a study is published or not? I don't believe it's the author that is the deciding factor. Peer reviews may be open, blind, or anonymous. What type of peer reviews are in the 97% you cited? Who funded the studies that were reviewed?
Look, go back and cruise the publication again it it tells you how they weeded out who they believed had conflict of interests and still came up with 97%
We defined UE researchers as those who have signed statements strongly dissenting from the views of the IPCC. We compiled UE names comprehensively from 12 of the most prominent statements criticizing the IPCC conclusions (n = 472; SI Materials and Methods). Only three researchers were members of both the CE and UE groups (due to their presence on both CE and UE lists) and remained in the dataset
More importantly (I believe) if you read in the abstract here
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.abstract
Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
they are telling you that some of this data comes from respected, published researchers (whose publishings may have NOTHING to do with climate change) who were surveyed on their position. This supports my argument against TAMS original claim where he believed most real Climatologists don't support global warming.
As for the 97% agreement, I'd wager that 97% of communists thought it was the best type of gov't, and that 97% of capitalists think theirs is best. It's just common sense that like minded people agree.
Look, if you want to make some kind of point lets use real numbers instead of pulling them out of God knows where: In the last US presidential election 47.15% of us voted for a Republican president and the other 51.01% voted for lint-brained a democratic sponge. So that tells you right there that half of this country doesn't agree with the other half. Now I don't know the brake down of Climatologists and their voting tendencies and I'm not going to pull figures out of the air but you can safely start at approximately 50/50 and skew it any direction you please.
We can beat this horse pretty good but how about we look at it from an entirely different angle.
Let's start with argument #1:
There is an abundance of data and research and statistics that tend to indicate that that a well-armed, licensed population of handgun toting Americans tend to be be most responsible, most law-abiding and most behaved population of individuals. Charles Cotton and his crew of helpers have done a great job of compiling statistics. Furthermore, studies tend to indicate that a licensed, well-armed and responsible population of gun-toting Americans tend experience less violent crime. I believe this to be true as well as most any good gun-toting supporter of the second amendment. The data and the statistics and research is there.
The grumbling anti-gun population of liberal America denies these claims. They cite the data as "shaky" and "biased" and "inconclusive" and refuse to believe a word of it regardless of it's origins. Progress in converting this section of the population is practically impossible. They cite and use every negative event toward furthering their negative agenda. There are interests with EXTREMELY deep pockets that continue to fund this obviously incorrect position in order to maintain their illusion of control.
Now lets look at argument #2:
There is an abundance if research, statistics and data that indicate that there is a continuing global warming trend. Furthermore, studies tend to indicate that the root cause of this global warming cycle we are experiencing are caused by industrialized societies emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. There is even research that indicates that there is a pretty solid consensus from the experts (Climatologists) in the field.
The grumbling, global-warming conspiracy-theorists denies these claims. They cite the data as "shaky" and "biased" and "inconclusive" and refuse to believe a word of it regardless of it's origins. Progress in converting this section of the population is practically impossible. They cite and use every thread they can grab hold of that supports their position no matter how thin, no matter where it dangled from. There are interests with EXTREMELY deep pockets that continue to fund this position in order to maintain their 100% "all-in" position at the table.
Do you see the parallels there? In both arguments, the opposing side won't be caught dead agreeing with the other. It does go toward what you are saying about like-minded people but there is an element there where people are afraid to be a dissenter within their group. I'll say it again: It PAINS me to be on this side of the argument! I'm usually the only the dissenter in my own circles. I'm certainly the dissenter here. One guy here even accused me of "having a bone to pick with our way of life". Go figure. But I'm not afraid. I don't care. I do care about the truth no matter how painful.
Right now Texas is winning bigtime with all the shale oil finds. All my interests in the energy are soaring. But if we don't get on board here 10 years will have come and gone and we will have bled this great state dry once again without a thing to show for it. Even if you want to believe that GW is a conspiracy you to still have to see that we are going do dry up these resources in a matter of time. We need some of these bonanzas to go toward the rebuilding of our infrastructure right now. If money is going to be spent on "green projects" for God's sake's let us spend here in our state since we are pulling the oil out from under it. I want those jobs and cash to stay HERE. In the end if we have bled this state dry and are the last ones to get started rebuilding our underlying energy production and delivery infrastructure we will truly look like a bunch of losers.
