30,000 scientists sue Al Gore for fraud.

[greymatrixx]

YouTube - Al Gore sued for fraud

Indy

[HeySal]

Its about time! Many people here still believe the human caused warming scam.

I talked to the Sierra Club about what classes I should take for an Environmental Parlegal certificate - and they sent me BS about warming and I sent them back the facts. They had nothing to say in reply....they are making good bucks from pushing the scam.

[gabby335]

I don't put much credence in ANYTHING that comes from Faux news network!

In fact, I don't watch much news ... period. I get my news from website of newspapers from other countries ... less propaganda that way!!

[KarlWarren]

The Earth has been colder... a LOT colder, and it has been a LOT hotter too. It's just a natural cycle. We don't have MUCH impact on it at all. Wait til there's a huge volcanic eruption (causing hundreds of tons of CO2 to be released into the atmosphere), then we'll see all those global warming lunatics panic.

[bendiggs]

There is no proven evidence that man has caused dramatic changes in the environment, but on the flipside, there is no conclusive evidence that says we aren't impacting the climate. The world has had many cycles of warming and cooling, but the actual cause of those is unknown. We can't say Al Gore is right or wrong because we really don't know.

[Phnx]

Bwahahah! Made my day!

It's the little things.

[Keith Gilbert]

I second HeySal's "it's about time" comment. I am sick and tired of people claiming that humans are ruining the earth. They want the government to spend billions of dollars and put all kinds of restrictions on companies and individuals to "stop global warming."

I don't see how anyone can say for sure that global warming is real. Even if it is, I doubt it's significantly caused by humans. When you think of how big the earth is compared to all the big cities that global warming activists claim are the problem, those big cities seem insignificant to the vastness of the planet.

Al Gore is just in it for the money. His house uses more energy in one MONTH than the average American's uses in an entire year. Read this also.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp

What annoys me too is that companies are latching on to the "global warming crisis" by buying "carbon credits" and calling themselves "green." They don't care if it's all a scam. They just want the good press.

[batchos]

Well, global warming is also about the rights of animals.

The cruelty that animals have to go through to let you have their flesh as your meal.

It's also about hunger. Many people around the world go hungry while we feed grain to livestock.

If you are interested in the vegetarian/vegan view, here's a replay of a conference I attended recently in LA.

http://godsdirectcontact.com/event/M...80726InLA.html

Both sides of the issue are available, you just have to care enough to find them. See my signature for a television channel that carries firsthand information about global warming and animal rights.

batchos

[HeySal]

Okay -before everyone gets all confused about what I just said -- I said humans don't cause WARMING. We are, in fact, the prime cause of desertification and other major damage to the earth - but not warming. If you have kept up with Earthwatch on RHS1
you know it's basically the sun activity and volcanoes that decide climate. But humans
have reached the critical mass and are clearing land which then is being dessicated by
desertification at unprecidented and alarming rates. We are RUINING our environments and that is still going to bite us in the long term. Desertificated land will NOT produce.

As far as warming - it has been very good for allowing us to flourish to the point of critical mass - now we have stepped beyond and have done so at a time when we face possible major cooling (sunspots aren't happening yet during this sun cycle) and a cooling will be catastrophic for growing enough food to feed an over-carrying capacity population. - and that's without government lunacy about distribution. We got our first taste over the last year when rice crops were devastated in unprecidented cold. Most countries discontinued export to feed their own people and rice reserves are dangerously low planetwide. What happens in another cold winter? We are screwed is what happens.
The poor of the world are already falling. Nations are limited in the help they can provide
with their own reserves depleated.

People thought that warming was scary? There's a new horror flick in being released and its called - Global Chill. And this one won't earn the politicians a fricken cent.

[Melkor]

Argument from numbers? Yeah, sure. "Eat ****, 10 trillion flies can't be wrong". You're marketers, you should know by now that the validity of social proof lies only in the emotional self-justification you derive from it, there is no evidentiary power in numbers.

Before you go any further out on any limbs based on Faux News reporting, spend some time educating yourself at CICERO and display some basic knowledge of how the scientific process works. al gore made a nice power point presentation, but he is irrelevant to the scientific process, unlike what the clowns at Fox would have you believe.

[fatfookbob]

saw a interested movie named the great global warming swindle witch says the opposite of what al gore claims, im totally stupid when it comes to this natural biology crap and didnt understand half of what they said but most of it made some sence anyway

mostly they say global warming is a fraud because of some dark sun spots whatever.
and they say global warming is just a million dollar industry witch i can confirm in my country where they run a anti gas using propaganda and people are starting to be ashamed for using gas and the bio cars or whatever that is they are creating are skyrocking in sales here

personally, i have 250m to my shop and have no problem going there by car to buy 1 L milk since its politicians and scientists problem to solve the global warming problem (if it exists) and not mine

[John M Kane]

Hey HeySal

your links are messed

[HeySal]

Originally Posted by war28476

Hey HeySal

your links are messed

Why so they are, John. Thank you. I guess they didn't do well in the copy/paste from one vortex to the next. Will fix that now.

ER.....anyone seen Tommy? I need to borrow the ****weasel flux capacitor.

[Michael Mayo]

If Al Gore would just keep his mouth shut the Earth would cool down some

[Kay King]

How does "wants to sue" end up being "Al gore sued" as a subject line?

We've debated global warming before here - and it's very easy to go online and find those who agree with the warming theories and those who don't agree.

So what?

Can anyone truly believe that releasing toxic substances into the earth's atmosphere from manufacturing, millions of autos, etc - that cutting down rain forests and pushing farther and farther into wildlife habitats to build cookie cutter houses.....is a good thing?

I think many of the programs being proposed for global warming are useless but is there anything wrong with wanting to STOP polluting our rivers and oceans and our air - or at the least to find new technology to reduce that pollution?

To say this is only a political issue is to opt out of any responsibility for the impact you have on the world. Responsible governments exist only when a responsible public demands it.

Instead of arguing the political aspects and picking apart research to use only what supports your personal views - wouldn't it be wiser to go forward with the idea of doing a better job at conserving the atmosphere of our planet and at preserving as many species as we can?

There is no downside to cleaning up some of our wasteful, damaging habits. If we ignore the potential of a future problem, and if the warnings are eventually found to be prophetic - the downside is quite large.

kay

[Michael Mayo]

Hey Kay,

Here's a temp picture for you to use untill you have a new one made!

[lauraswane]

Regardless of science, no one can deny the drastic change in the weather. It has rained at least once every day where I live, though in previous year's I'd be watering my lawn at this time.

That said, the earth has gone through drastic climate changes before so perhaps it will regulate itself once again. If you look back at the history of the earths climate, there is no defined norm.

[Kay King]

Michael -

Thanks! I love it - makes me look younger

[John Rowe]

I have no idea if Global Warming is real or not... but that guy said nothing. Sure would like to hear some intellegence on the subject.

[Michelle Brouse]

Listen hey Stop - What's that sound... everyone look what's going down....

The sun causes the heat and cooling as far as I have learned, and it's the "natural cycle of the earth."

You know, like spring, summer, fall and winter.

Why must folks insist that we are so "BIG and BAD" to control the natural cycles of time and space.

BTW Sal - nice to see you on the pic! Showed Anth tonight, said "hey Anth, check this out - this is Sal!"

He's heard me talk about you once or twice, it's all been good.

Thanks Indy for the link, glad someone is saying something - but as far as I care - it's not enough. The people who know have to get to the point where they are no longer ridiculed. I'll help there as much as I can.

Thanks!
Michelle

[TimPhelan]

Old news made into another viral email type campaign. This petition was started around 1998 and a majority of the signatures were from that period. It seems some of people who signed this are dead now.

Oregon Petition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The text of the petition is often misrepresented: for example, until recently the petition's website stated that the petition's signatories "declare that global warming is a lie with no scientific basis whatsoever."[4] The two-paragraph petition used the terms catastrophic heating and disruption, not "global warming." The original article associated with the petition (see below) defined "global warming" as "severe increases in Earth's atmospheric and surface temperatures, with disastrous environmental consequences".[5] This differs from both scientific usage and dictionary definitions, in which "global warming" is an increase in the global mean atmospheric temperature[6][7] without implying that the increase is "severe" or will have "disastrous environmental consequences."

Global Warming Skeptic Organizations

"Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine

The Marshall Institute co-sponsored with the OISM a deceptive campaign -- known as the Petition Project -- to undermine and discredit the scientific authority of the IPCC and to oppose the Kyoto Protocol. Early in the spring of 1998, thousands of scientists around the country received a mass mailing urging them to sign a petition calling on the government to reject the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was accompanied by other pieces including an article formatted to mimic the journal of the National Academy of Sciences. Subsequent research revealed that the article had not been peer-reviewed, nor published, nor even accepted for publication in that journal and the Academy released a strong statement disclaiming any connection to this effort and reaffirming the reality of climate change. The Petition resurfaced in 2001.

Spin: There is no scientific basis for claims about global warming. IPCC is a hoax. Kyoto is flawed.

Funding: Petition was funded by private sources."

Here's something from last year when this petition appeared again:

RealClimate

"Oregon Institute of Science and Malarkey

A large number of US scientists (to our direct knowledge: engineers, biologists, computer scientists and geologists) received a package in the mail this week. The package consists of a colour preprint of a 'new' article by Robinson, Robinson and Soon and an exhortation to sign a petition demanding that the US not sign the Kyoto Protocol. If you get a feeling of deja vu, it is because this comes from our old friends, the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine and is an attempt to re-invigorate the highly criticised 1999 "Oregon Petition"."

I think Kay had it about right on this issue.

[greymatrixx]

The threat of global warming is real, it's at least partially manmade, and consumers and industry have to stop spewing carbon dioxide into the air or little by little we're all going to roast."
LARRY DERFNER : The Jerusalem Post.

For anyone who has not read it...Profile Al Gore...

EARTHWATCH: RHS1 Global Rockhound Community Enviromental News E-zine.

Indy...

[Mike Wright]

Ok, lets just accept that there are a variety of views on these matters for
a while and accept the empirical evidence of climate and ecological change.

I would agree that concentrating on Carbon Dioxide reduction may be questionable, but maybe not for the same reasons as others. However,
if the Carbon trading licences enable some South American countries to
preserve the rainforests and associated areas of huge biodiversity, that
must in itself be a good thing for the planet.

The one huge atmospheric pollutant category wwhich most definitely
affects climate .... and also mirrors industrial, agricultural and similar
hydrocarbon usage growth in the last century or two, is the rise in
atmospheric dust and particulates.

Intensive farming, deforestation, over-grazing have resulted in
increasing desertification and huge dustbowls. Particulate emissions
from aircraft, shipping, vehicles and industry has increased immensely.
As Sal pointed out in this thread, volcanic and tectonic activity seems
to have increased in recent years.

This type of pollution can cause dramatic localised environmental
changes or much larger and global changes. In some cases, this can
be reversed by local changes at source eg. the current Olympics or
clean air regulations in cities to minimise fog, smog and other problems.

Admittedly, the heavier particles which pose the spectre known as
a "nuclear winter" will usually come back down again with rain and
or gravity ... therefore posing a short-term if sometimes severe problem.
However, particulates and any number of chemical compounds can
float around at various levels in the atmosphere where they are capable
of causing such problems as the "holes in the Ozone Layer".

Then of course we come to the oceans which are a massive arbiter
of climate, the atmosphere and more. Indeed, oceanic algae produces
the majority of the planet's oxygen. The oceans are also a massive
source of food and biodiversity. So why nearly everyone treats the
oceans as a giant sewage plant, repository for every concievable
toxic chemical and a rubbish tip is objectively somewhat stupid.

It matters not a jot really whatever your views are on Global Warming,
Kyoto or Carbon Credits.... we simply can not use those views to
continue acting as we have done over the last couple of centuries.

What do I base some of the above views on ?
Well, about 35 years ago in the UK, before the clean air legislation and
when coal fires and inefficient vehicle engines were the norm, we had
real seasons and long hot summers. I could wash and polish my car and
it would shine for weeks. The main reason for washing it was to remove
about a million splattered insects from the glass and bodywork. Currently,
I can wash and polish my car .... and its covered in dust by the next day
without local farmers operating/harvesting, building works, or weather
systems transporting volcanic dust or desert sand from other countries.
Also, apart from flying ant season, there are usually few if any bugs to
wash off the windscreen relative to years ago.

To be honest, I am less convinced by the proponents of solar cycles
and variations of planetary orbit, than I am by the clear and empirical
evidence of the observable negative effects of our activities upon our
ecology and environment.

[KarlWarren]

Kay and Mike,

those two well thought out posts are brilliant.

While I don't think that "global warming" is man made, I do agree that we
are abusing our environment.

We kill more things than need to be killed, we waste more things than need
to be wasted and we take everything for granted.

The area around any one of us is a scruffy, dirty mess and most of us will
turn a blind eye and think "yeah, someone ought to clean that up."

So, while 'carbon dioxide' in the atmosphere isn't really something I think
will destroy us (well, not man made carbon anyway) - I do feel that what
we're dumping anywhere and everywhere IS having an impact on life.

Kindest regards,
Karl.

[pehweiliang]

A good suggestion would be "The Guardian". So far this newspaper has been one of the more neutral and relevant news provider. Of course, as it is from British, any British news might be deemed as not 100% accurately reported.

[Mike Wright]

Originally Posted by pehweiliang

A good suggestion would be "The Guardian". So far this newspaper has been one of the more neutral and relevant news provider. Of course, as it is from British, any British news might be deemed as not 100% accurately reported.

The Guardian must be the most neutral uncontroversial newspaper
in the UK. The readership is, by and large, very similar in nature ...
often employed in environments of oppressive political correctness.
On the plus side, the readers are usually environmentally conscious
and exhibit vast diligence in determining whether a pack of teabags
from a "Free Trade" source is preferred to a pack of loose tea from China
in terms of environmental impact. Somewhat paradoxically, they also
sometimes bicycle about 20 miles to work while their partner drives
their several children around in some vast vehicle to purchase some
special breed chickens to produce eggs in their urban living space.

I doubt that I will ever be a willing Guardian reader ..... at least
while there is some paint I can watch drying somewhere (anywhere)

[gabby335]

Bravo Kay!

I won't repeat what was stated, just to say that I agree with her 100% (well, maybe 99% ... no opinion is ever 100% agreeable!)

As for the comment about Al Gore "inventing the Internet" ... please ... stop repeating the propaganda from the far right! To get the real story on this "claim", go to the Snopes page that explains all about it with a REAL 'fair and balanced' look at the whole story! snopes.com: Al Gore Invented the Internet

Carry on with the debate! And for those of you who are skeptical ... actually view the documentary or read the book before railing against it. And READ BOTH sides to get the real story.

Just my quick take.

[ellyan]

Kay,

Why do you think that the offered programs are useless?

OK.I had never entered into discussion about global warming before however I

think this is a huge concern today.

I'm afraid the problem could remain for years to come.
I hope the goverments will refer with responsibility..Meanwhile I think that people
are not so concerned about our planet. Pity!

Elitsa

[Michael Mayo]

Michael

[Barry Walls]

Originally Posted by ellyan

Kay,

Why do you think that the offered programs are useless?

OK.I had never entered into discussion about global warming before however I

think this is a huge concern today.

I'm afraid the problem could remain for years to come.
I hope the goverments will refer with responsibility..Meanwhile I think that people
are not so concerned about our planet. Pity!

Elitsa

Hi Ellyan

I don't think that you can equate mistrusting the science of global warming activists with not caring for the environment. One doesn't necessarily follow the other. I think global warming is a total scam but I am very concerned with pollution, environmental management and resource depletion.

Barry

[HeySal]

I am wondering why in any attempt at enviromental discussions people want to think we have to clean up C02? C02 is NOT a pollutant - it is a natural gas and, in fact, it will protect plants in warming situations - they NEED the stuff.
If you want to talk about cleaning the environment - Carbon MONOXIDE (as opposed to Carbon DIOXIDE) is a nasty pollutant. So why are we worried about the natural element and completely ignoring the actually deadly pollutant? Guess there's no money in real, constructive environmentalism, eh?


WOW Kay - just saw your avatar....that stuff REALLY works -- better than I thought it does.

[Jose Delgado]

I think Global Warming is REAL! And It IS a Big deal.

I'm with Al on this one.

[Melkor]

Originally Posted by HeySal

I am wondering why in any attempt at enviromental discussions people want to think we have to clean up C02? C02 is NOT a pollutant - it is a natural gas and, in fact, it will protect plants in warming situations - they NEED the stuff.
If you want to talk about cleaning the environment - Carbon MONOXIDE (as opposed to Carbon DIOXIDE) is a nasty pollutant. So why are we worried about the natural element and completely ignoring the actually deadly pollutant? Guess there's no money in real, constructive environmentalism, eh?.

Because carbon monoxide is an unstable and reactive gas that rapidly oxidizes to form regular carbon dioxide in non-enclosed spaces. CO is a byproduct of incomplete combustion, and is only a localized problem if you're camping and the camping stove isn't burning hot enough, for example.

It's very simple really - CO2 functions exactly like the glass panes in a hothouse. It lets visible light through but absorbs infrared energy in the far infrared, which is the vawelength that the Earth normally radiates heat out into space through. At some point the heat below builds up to the point where the infrared radiation has a different wavelength that doesn't get absorbed by the CO2 and radiates back out to space - unfortunately, that wavelength corresponds to temperatures considerably higher than the median temperature of the Earth as of now, leading to a gradual buildup of residual heat until a new, higher equilibrium is reached.

You feel this process in action if you've ever been in a hothouse.

Unfortunately, the CO2 that we keep adding to the atmosphere is the equivalent of adding thicker and thicker glass panes/more isolation to our hothouse, pushing the equilibrium temperature higher and higher.

This is not a good thing - most of out staple food plants have very narrow temperature ranges that give optimum yields, and you've already seen what happens when temperatures deviate from that.

No-one denies that the sun is the driving force in the solar system. All we're saying is that when we're living in a pressure cooker, it's not real clever to turn up the heat and plug the safety valve.

[Barry Walls]

what you say is true...but what you leave out is that CO2 is only 3% of greenhouse gases and we are only reponsible for about (im not sure of the exact figure) @4% of that....so we are responsible for 0.12% of all green house gases. The earth has been a lot hotter than it is today and its been OK.

[Melkor]

Originally Posted by bigjock

what you say is true...but what you leave out is that CO2 is only 3% of greenhouse gases and we are only reponsible for about (im not sure of the exact figure) @4% of that....so we are responsible for 0.12% of all green house gases. The earth has been a lot hotter than it is today and its been OK.

Oh, the Earth will pull through just fine, don't worry.

But I'm kinda partial to an Earth that's capable of supporting human life in reasonable numbers and a reasonable pleasant lifestyle. That's not a given, the catastrophic scenarios that are possible if the worst of the Tipping Point scenarios turn out to be the projections most closely aligned with reality are the stuff of nightmares.

Take a look at the South Pole now. It's the middle of their winter, and the ice shelves are still melting. In winter. At the South Pole.

That don't give you pause?

The Earth will live on, of course it will. But we might not - desertifcation is accelerating, arable land is disappearing at an alarming clip, and biomass production in the oceans is decreasing due to the average temperature moving just slightly out of the optimum temperature range for phytoplankton and other marine life at the bottom of the food chain.

What happens when a Butterfly Marketer flaps his wings? Small knock-on effects can have far-reaching consequences.

[Barry Walls]

Its all worrying, but none of it has anything to do with CO2 from humans IMO.

[Melkor]

Originally Posted by bigjock

Its all worrying, but none of it has anything to do with CO2 from humans IMO.

Well, that's the thing - reality is not subject to vote, opinion, or debate, and though your opinion says otherwise, the facts on the ground shows that the only explanation that correlates with the facts as we know them is either "The Flying spachetti monster did it", or it's human-produced carbon emissions that's responsible.

And despite the rather desperate lies put out by the Cato institute, the American Enterprise Institute, the CPPI, and other PR arms of Big Oil spread in the public sphere modeleed on the marketing campaign of Big Tobacco that successfully supressed evidence of the harmful effects of cigarette smoking for 30-40 years, there is no doubt that the 'hockey stick' graph that Al Gore borrowed for his movie is real, the temperature increases are real, the accelerating effects of climate change and the knock-on effects are real.

It's a fascinating process from a PR/marketing standpoint of course - Big Oil went out and hired the same PR guys that worked for Bg Tobacco and had them go to work using essentially the same strategy to pollute the public sphere and confuse the public discourse with irrelevant and disingenous distractions from the facts on the ground.

Bg Tobacco pullet it off for 30-40 years and killed God knows how many people through their quest for keeping on selling carcinogenic, addictive drugs to the public.

If Big Oil pulls it off for another 30-40 years, I wonder how many lives they're going to cut short?

[Barry Walls]

Originally Posted by Melkor

there is no doubt that the 'hockey stick' graph that Al Gore borrowed for his movie is real, the temperature increases are real,

Dude, the hockey stick graph has been totally debunked. If you took a sample over time of how many 18-23 year olds populated this forum in the last 5 years, it would be a hockey stick graph. They've tested it with some weird and wonderful data sets. The computer model used produces a hockey stick for every data set. Its a statistical joke.

"The researchers responsible for the original data have been brought before Congress to defend their findings, with one member of the House going so far as to demand to inspect their personal financial records for evidence of bribery."

Adobe - Design Center : Seeing is believing: Information visualization and the debate over global warming - the correct graphs are here.

You only have to look at it to know its wrong...the warm period before little ice age isn't even on it. That was only 800 years ago and they had vineyards in the south of England.

Its flat out wrong. Sorry.

Barry

[Melkor]

Originally Posted by bigjock

Dude, the hockey stick graph has been totally debunked. If you took a sample over time of how many 18-23 year olds populated this forum in the last 5 years, it would be a hockey stick graph. They've tested it with some weird and wonderful data sets. The computer model used produces a hockey stick for every data set. Its a statistical joke.

"The researchers responsible for the original data have been brought before Congress to defend their findings, with one member of the House going so far as to demand to inspect their personal financial records for evidence of bribery."

Adobe - Design Center : Seeing is believing: Information visualization and the debate over global warming - the correct graphs are here.

You only have to look at it to know its wrong...the warm period before little ice age isn't even on it. That was only 800 years ago and they had vineyards in the south of England.

Its flat out wrong. Sorry.

Barry

Selective quoting from a design theorist explaing why global warming deniers are so desperate to question the visual representation of the current warming trend? Oh, my - read your own link and understand what he's saying:

As Edward Tufte has famously observed, less is often just less when it comes to visualizing information. So designers should think twice before sacrificing complexity for the sake of clarity. “Complex information graphics correlate many data points in a way that conveys the overall message without sacrificing the nuance of detail or oversimplifying the concept,” says Martin. “Rather, they strike a balance between ‘thesis’ and ‘data’ levels of an argument and thus present a more robust and interesting case.” Although critics of the hockey stick have offered alternative visualizations, few of them have been as visually compelling as the original. The simplified graph below, which charts the same data, would only be convincing to someone who already agreed with the claim that the current pattern of global warming is part of the natural cycle.

In other words, it's nothing to do with the credibility or lack thereof of the visual representation of the dataset, it's only about design considerations involved.

My degree is in chemical engineering and computer science. I understand the underlying mathemathical and statistical models used, as well as the algorithms used to convert the datasets into a visual representation and more importantly, the physical chemistry facts that underpin the explanatory models that the global warming researchers are using.

This is why the 'hockey stick' graph is convincing to me - because I do understand the underlying science.

It's probably also why it's unconvincing to you.

The thing I find really ironic though is that apart from the global warming issue I'd be right there along with Sal on most things. There is a financial elite that conspires to keep the masses down, there is an overaching global organization that doesn't give a damn about the civilians as long as they get theirs, there's a whole lot of really old money who don't give a rat's ass about humanity as a whole as long as they get to own yo'ass.

Where we part ways is in identifying who that elite is, and who's the one lying to you.

If you only knew how much cash there is in being a global warming denier you'd know who that elite is.

[Barry Walls]

OK...go and plug any data set into the model used to produce the hockey stick graph and dont come up with a hockey stick...then I'll be impressed. Many have tried...no one has succeeded as far as I am aware....but Im open to you proving me wrong.

[Melkor]

Originally Posted by bigjock

OK...go and plug any data set into the model used to produce the hockey stick graph and dont come up with a hockey stick...then I'll be impressed. Many have tried...no one has succeeded as far as I am aware....but Im open to you proving me wrong.

Cite? Link? Do you have a credible, peer-reviewed study to back up that unfounded assertion? Or are you merely repeating a talking point from Big Oil's publicist now?

[Barry Walls]

Id say the 30000 sueing scientists count as peer review. In the great global warming swindle documentary, top climatologists and staticticians tested the model and it came back every time as a hockey stick.

In peer review, dont you have to release your data?

Hmmmm....I wonder why he isnt? "The Hockey Stick is broken. Michael Mann refuses to release his code & data." | Logical Science

But I already realise that nothing will satisfy you...you seem very heavily invested in your position, despite the uproar from the majority of your peer group.

Prove me wrong...build a non hockey stick graph from any data set with that computer model.

[Melkor]

Dude, do you even read the links you post? Everything in that page verifies what I've been saying.

And did you read what TimPhelan posted up above?

Global Warming Skeptic Organizations

"Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine

The Marshall Institute co-sponsored with the OISM a deceptive campaign -- known as the Petition Project -- to undermine and discredit the scientific authority of the IPCC and to oppose the Kyoto Protocol. Early in the spring of 1998, thousands of scientists around the country received a mass mailing urging them to sign a petition calling on the government to reject the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was accompanied by other pieces including an article formatted to mimic the journal of the National Academy of Sciences. Subsequent research revealed that the article had not been peer-reviewed, nor published, nor even accepted for publication in that journal and the Academy released a strong statement disclaiming any connection to this effort and reaffirming the reality of climate change. The Petition resurfaced in 2001.

Spin: There is no scientific basis for claims about global warming. IPCC is a hoax. Kyoto is flawed.

Funding: Petition was funded by private sources."

A lot of the people whose names appear on Oregon Petition have sued the organizations still perpetuating the hoax for associating their names with global warming denialists.

[bendiggs]

This always amazes me. Almost everyone here has taken one side or the other without any regard to the evidence presented by the opposition. It is so easy to find someone who agrees with your point of view and use it to attack others who disagree. I challenge all of you to look into the well reasoned and researched data of the opposing side. I doubt that anyone has examined the other side with an open mind or willingness to accept that maybe they aren't all out to deceive.

[Phnx]

Originally Posted by Melkor

Or are you merely repeating a talking point from Big Oil's publicist now?

Oooh no, you don't wanna be throwing out the "Big Oil" schtick to rubbish opponents. Seriously you don't. 'Cos I just luurve bringing up some juicy links I dug up about the Saintly Mr Gore. These did not come from the "Right", nooo, what's really delicious about these is that they came from The Left. The intellectual "hard" Left at that - y'know Noam Chomsky's crowd. The very people who should be supporting him against the nasty Corporatists are adamant he is also "one of them" and taking most of the world for a ride. Not a surprise to those of us who follow the chicanery of the Globalists.

From the real Left:

"Of course Al Gore has been a shil for nuclear power ever since he came of age as a political harlot for the Oakridge nuclear laboratory in his home state of Tennessee. The practical beneficiary of the baseless hysteria over "anthropogenic global warming" is the nuclear power industry. This very fall, as Peter Montague describes at length in our current CounterPunch newsletter, this industry is reaping the fruits of Al Gore's campaigning. Congress has finally knocked aside the regulatory licensing processes that have somewhat protected the public across recent decades. The starting gun has sounded, and just about the moment Gore and his co-conspirators at the IPCC collect their prizes, the bulldozers will be breaking ground for the new nuclear plants soon to spring like Amanita phalloides--just as deadly--across the American landscape."

Counterpunch (a very lefty mag)

Alexander Cockburn: Al Gore's Peace Prize (scroll, centre article)

Carbon Credits was a stroke of genius, I must admit. Sumptuary Law in a modern setting. Puts us peons back in our box and returns us to the feudal system. Hope the Elite reward him well.

Did you know that Al Gore is directly responsible for the biggest environmental "gift" to Big Oil in US History?

Counterpunch again:

"Oil companies during the 20th Century, reports the Center for Public Integrity, "have tried unsuccessfully to obtain control of two oil fields owned and operated by the federal government: the Teapot Dome field in Casper, Wyoming, and the Elk Hillsfield in Bakersfield, California."

When Clinton and Gore took office in 1992, that was about to change. Perhaps only outdone by George W. Bush's connections to Big Oil, Al Gore pressed President Clinton to approve handing over these public lands to the oil companies. The land, managed by the Navy, had held emergency oil reserves since 1912.

It took five years of lobbying on behalf of Big Oil, but Gore and Occidental were victories. In the fall of 1997 the Energy Department sold 47,000 acres of the Elk Hill reserve to Occidental. Continues The Center for Public Integrity:

"It was the largest privatization of federal property in U.S. history, one that tripled Occidental's U.S. oil reserves overnight. Although the Energy Department was required to assess the likely environmental consequences of the proposed sale, it didn't. Instead it hired a private company, ICF Kaiser International, Incorporated, to complete the assessment. The general chairman of Gore's presidential campaign, Tony Coelho, sat on the board of directors.

"The very same day the Elk Hills sale was announced, Gore delivered a speech to the White House Conference on Climate Change on the "terrifying prospect" of global warming, a problem he blamed on the unchecked use of fossil fuels such as oil."

Much much more... Joshua Frank: Nobel Gore? (scroll for centre article)

From the Leftwing The Nation: (4 pages of muck) Gore's Oil Money

As my old Grandpa used to say, they all pee in the same pot.

Everywhere ya look there be lies and damn lies.

[Phnx]

Originally Posted by Melkor

Dude, do you even read the links you post? Everything in that page verifies what I've been saying.

And did you read what TimPhelan posted up above?


A lot of the people whose names appear on Oregon Petition have sued the organizations still perpetuating the hoax for associating their names with global warming denialists.

Did you get your copy of the latest IPCC report? Had a copy somewhere, I'll see if I can find it for you.

You know what is really surprising? All those "thousands of scientists" they claim they have seem to have gone missing when it came time to putting their names to it. There are only around 50+ names on it. Don't forget many of those that originally started the ball rolling on this have since "recanted" when they checked out the new evidence coming out. (Also don't forget science does not, and cannot work by "consensus".)

Advancements in knowledge are made precisely by the scientists who break with "consensus".

I'll see if I can dig it out though it should be around on the net somewhere - it was in pdf format.

[rajhu]

Originally Posted by batchos

Well, global warming is also about the rights of animals.

The cruelty that animals have to go through to let you have their flesh as your meal.

It's also about hunger. Many people around the world go hungry while we feed grain to livestock.

If you are interested in the vegetarian/vegan view, here's a replay of a conference I attended recently in LA.

Master video conference in LA 20080726

Both sides of the issue are available, you just have to care enough to find them. See my signature for a television channel that carries firsthand information about global warming and animal rights.

batchos

Well I'm a Raw Food Vegan and I totally understand the cruelty of factory farming etc. But that has very little to do with Global Warming. We're talking separate issues here.

If it were the case then why would last year have been the biggest global temperature drop ever recorded?

I've linked to the story on it here on my blog.
Widescale Global Cooling… Largest Temp Drop In One Year | Raw Food Diet, Bodyweight Exercises and Self-Mastery

Cheers,

Roger Haeske
The 41-Year-Old Teenager

[Melkor]

Originally Posted by Phnx

Did you get your copy of the latest IPCC report? Had a copy somewhere, I'll see if I can find it for you.

You know what is really surprising? All those "thousands of scientists" they claim they have seem to have gone missing when it came time to putting their names to it. There are only around 50+ names on it. Don't forget many of those that originally started the ball rolling on this have since "recanted" when they checked out the new evidence coming out. (Also don't forget science does not, and cannot work by "consensus".)

Advancements in knowledge are made precisely by the scientists who break with "consensus".

I'll see if I can dig it out though it should be around on the net somewhere - it was in pdf format.

Well, first off- I'm European, so what you're referring to as 'leftist', I think of as 'moderately conservative', to 'somewhat reactionary'.

You know, back in the day there was real Republicans who established the wildlife preserves, the Clean air act, and other environmental acts, the EPA was established by friggin' Richard Nixon for Ghod's sake. Since when is it conservative politics to waste as much as possible, to spend the treasury like a drunken sailor, to thrash the place because you aren't concerned about the long term? When did Republicans turn into rethuglicans?

Man, I miss Republicans.

You know, real republicans, the ones who could read and debate the actual issues, and who at least knew enough to know that they didn't know enough about the issue to talk about it.

Did you even bother to read my first reply in this thread? Al Gore made a very nice power point presentation, but he has as much to do with the science side of things as a spokesmodel for L'Oreal has input on the formulation of their product (glycerine soap and some perfume, plus very smart marketing, mostly. And some silicone oil to prevent split ends if we're talking shampoo. Just in case you wondered.)

If you want factual criticism of the movie you need look no further than this from Realclimate.org where actual credentialled scientists in the field criticises some dubious conclusions and factual errors Gore made in the movie.

But seriously - the disingenousness of trying to frame this as a debate over the credibility of the spokesmodel as opposed to the IPCC is extremely revealing in as much as it shows that you either know you can't debate on the facts since the facts prove your standpoint wrong, or you attack what you perceive as the messenger because you lack the educational background to understand the science and therefore are forced to view everything in a politcal spin framework, where facts are subject to debate and change according to your perspective.
The Michael Crichton framework, if you will.Who doesn't understand the actual science, but pretends that he does.

Which is of course the hallmark of the later generation of Rethuglicans who made even Juan Cole split from the Red State core.

But all right - since you obviously don't understand how the scientific process works - the IPCC is not a petition, and it's only signed by the people who is actually on the committee. Unlike the Oregon Hoax which gives this thread its title, the IPCC report only presents an overview of the field as it stands right now, it's not intended to be the final answer to everything.

But you know, maybe noted leftist rag The Economist is more your speed - read some background material and get back to me.

Reality is that which doesn't go away when you stop believeing in it
-Philip K. Dick

Climate change and anthropogenic forcing of the system by dumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere is not going away just because you refuse to believe in it.

[greymatrixx]

Orginaly posted by Indiana on another thread.

***************
4...CO2 as the prime cause of global warming has not yet been validated its still a theory.


In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were deleted from the final draft. Here they are:

1) None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases.

2) No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man made causes. To the present day there is still no scientific proof that man-made CO2 causes significant global warming.

See "Carbon dioxide rebellion" edition 6 of RHS1 Earthwatch...


Though out 2007/8 Hundreds of media reports from all over the planet have been read and considered,here at RHS1, dozens of scientific papers researched, in the past few days media reports examined still repeat and quote as fact information that has been shown, demonstrated, definitively to be wrong, untrue, incorrect.

Whatever you believe about global warming/climate change, you do well to take heed here, you cannot have full confidence in what you read in the mass written media about global warming/climate change.

Now I am not going to waste my time here demonstrating errors, the real problem is that many of these errors are used as fact as proof of opinion and projections of consequences. Such forward thinking based on error may be termed "logical fantasies".

***************

Originally posted by Melkor on another thread

************
"1996 was a long time ago, dude. Read less conspiracy theory and more theoretical physics, and you'll have an easier time of it seeing through the obfuscation spread by certain energy interests."

************

Groan!!!!!!!...Melkor I read your trite, toy town, scientific explanation of global atmospheric mechanics on this thread...What you said is almost correct for CO2 in a jar, the planet is NOT a jar...It is also true for hydogen if you stuff enough in your jar...

Now unless you are privy to some information that has so far eluded the body of science stop claiming that CO2 is the prime mover of global climate change because you do not know, I know you do not know, I refer you to the warning posted above as you are living proof that such a warning is necessary...

Pull yourself together man you are suffering from carbon madness a celebral condition which preys upon the fears of decent concerned people...Once stricken an intelligent person starts running around like an alarmist chicken with no head spouting pre-programmed mis-information with such confidence and authority that to the average observer it is not obvious that person observed has gone totally mad.

QED...Your words Melkor

"there is no doubt that the 'hockey stick' graph that Al Gore borrowed for his movie is real,"

"NO DOUBT"!... you must the only person in the world who is unaware that the graph was wrong the data it was complied from was misinterpreted much to the embarrassment of NASA...Now if you still have "No doubt" go and have a word with Jim (cattle truck) Hansen over at NASA tell him I sent you because he really wants it to right.
Never mind the algorithms... "Rubbish in rubbish out".


"1996 was a long time ago"

Shrewd observation Melkor yet as you appear to be still there it shouldn't cause any problem...

The correct response to my above posted info is (why were the two statements deleted from the final draft?)...
Now understand this is pure conjecture on my part; I believe the IPCC still had some real scientists among its ranks at this era who were about to piss on the campfire
however someone spotted them.

As for "Big Oil"... No one is paying me eh!...Now if anyone from"Big Oil" is reading this I am available and not expensive...

Gore works for Rothschild...Atomic power stations...Read some conspiracy theory...

"read theoretical physics" NO you read some thorectical physics....I've read enough....Start with Earthwatch 02

Earthwatch Series | Self Reliance Survival Systems

Then read everything to 09....Because I am the editor...So you have a lot of ammunition there with which you can prove that the conclusions arrived at from the investigation are incorrect....Bonne chance..."Dude"...Indiana

[Melkor]

Hmm, you do appear to have a reasonable overview of the field so far; let me just point out to you that the description of the small science experiement was just about how one establishes exactly which wavelentgths are absorbed by CO2 and which ones are let through, thus predicting which temperature "window"* the CO2 forcing will operate within, not one to characterise the system behaviour of the entire atmosphere.

For that, you do indeed need more than a glass jar. A planet, for example.

Look, you're with me on climate change being an actual event, right? You follow me on how CO2 contibutes to the hothouse effect by being an extra forcing on the system? The average temperature doesn't need to rise much for it to be a Very Bad Thing for humanity, even if the planet will survive just fine.

The sun is the prime mover of climate change as the historical variance graph shows; but the extra forcing of anthropogenic CO2 contributes a significant fraction of the current warming trend and explains most of the extra increase in temperature and the steepness of the slope's change compared to previous cycles.

(One of the interesting hypothesises that is under investigation by CICERO and that I'm looking forward to seeing more results from is trying to correlate the data from the SOHO solar observer satelite, various other observation stations, and cosmic ray detection stations from various astophysics projects including several radio astronomy projects to see if it's possible to detect an influence of cosmic rays from extrasolar sources on climate, temperature variance and cloud formation. The math will be horrenduous of course, but it should be possible to sort out what influence, positive or negative - incoming extrasolar radiation has on the climate and whether or not historical data from these observations changes anything in the math.)

Howeever, I note that quite a few of your sources, like Dr. Tim Ball and his Natural Resources Stewardship Project are basically energy industry lobbyists - you might want to run your sources through Sourcewatch to clean your list of energy industry lobbyists of any kind and see who you're left with?

And looking back at the 1996 event - those sentences were removed because they were inaccurate. It was already clear in 1996 that anthropogenic CO2 was a distorting force on the system, and thus the attempt by the energy industry lobbyists to declare on the front page that there was no problem and no reason to get all up into the oil industry's business was naturally removed.

*If these guys can commercialize the technology into a reliable application, you can see some fun with changing the way the glass windows in your house reflect or absorb heat in summer and winter.