Nope - they are both charitable independant entities of charitable trust.
good analysis with evidence to back it up there.
What list, I haven't provided a list, I have provided the results of surveys ?
Spoken like a true sporter of the tin foil hat of truth !
Either ALL scientists are in on a big scam ...
or
.... don't you think the likes of Fox News, the neocons, or any other group could publish their own independant surveys with data on the number of skeptics.
Just email a massive randomly choosen sample of scientists and get the response back then publish the results without governments and climate conspiracists being able to modify them.....
funny they won't do that though.
The fact that you think that is independant is unbelievable.If I tried that with an independent 'charitable trust' funded by 'Big Oil' you'd take me to the cleaners...!
Like you, I have no respect for that sort of news.
Because it is meaningless, and you know it.The same as your stats - irrelevant.Stick to the science.
The 'argument' will be won and lost based on the evidence of actual experience versus that predicted by the models, and the MMGW brigade aren't doing so well at the moment!

sidicks
Surely you can see the difference between these two statements:
- The earth is a greenhouse
- In some respects, at a simplified level, the earth and its atmosphere act in a similar way to a greenhouse
I would suggest the latter, rather than the former, is correct!

Sidicks
You stand at the bottom of the cliff and I'll drop a rock off.
Now I modeled it hitting you and killing you stone dead, but since the argument will be won and lost based on the evidence of actual experience.
Me personally, I know we are raping the planets resources and leaving a right old mess, as can be seen in the destruction we have caused to the rainforests of the world.
Britian used to be covered in forests, now it's woodland is few and far between.
Open cast mines, vast areas used to dump rubbish, plastic mush floating in the oceans to cover an area the size of Texas.
If we take a hit on the amount of energy and resources we use, then it's better for the environement we live in anyway.
..... and it might just save us from climate catastrophy.
.... or we could just sod it, burn as much fuel as we want, make as much mess as we feel like and see what happens.
That's being a pedant to try and claw back a silly mistake.
You weren't an actuary for the banking sector were you, might explain some of risks and following financial disasters 
Can you also explain why anyone employ's you if as you state - "The 'argument' will be won and lost based on the evidence of actual experience versus that predicted by the models"
...sort of makes a mockery of your own career doesn't it ?
Only if :
a) You dropped a lot of acid.
b) buy into the conspiracy theory.
Paranoid or what ?!?!
You missed out the bit where he said "... Stick to the science".
If only he would! //static.avforums.com/styles/avf/smilies/facepalm.gif
Why would he? Sticking to the science means he has no case.