Jim Saueressig
EF5
John Coleman the founder of the weather channel and 30,000 scientists to sue Al Gore for global warming fraud......
This is funny!
This is funny!
30,000 Scientists to Sue Al Gore for Fraud
- Thread starter Jim Saueressig
- Start date
Scott Weberpal
EF5
I'm not a scientist yet, but I will be in 3 semesters...I'll be happy to join them and make 30,001. Yes, the earth's climate is warming, but I'm nowhere near sold we as humans have much if anything to do with it.
Quintin Erdman
Good
Conman Gore has made $300 million in the global warming scam and has ruined the auto industry, maybe we can get him to donate towards the bailout? A good prosecutor could easily get him on a RICO charge.
The next thing the envirowhackos will do is come up with a way to charge for the consumption of oxygen.
Conman Gore has made $300 million in the global warming scam and has ruined the auto industry, maybe we can get him to donate towards the bailout? A good prosecutor could easily get him on a RICO charge.
The next thing the envirowhackos will do is come up with a way to charge for the consumption of oxygen.
Brian Emfinger
EF4
funny and stupid. They are as bad as Gore except from the opposite. It may not be a 100% agreement on anything about GW but it certainly not 100% its not so the talk of suing (although just a publicity stunt) is stupid.
I still don't understand how so many people can be so dead set against the possibility that we are part of the cause of GW.
I still don't understand how so many people can be so dead set against the possibility that we are part of the cause of GW.
Rob Wadsworth
EF5
I would have to echo what Scott W and Quintin E both said.
There is enough evidence to support the fact that there is a warming trend, but I dispute the cause. The 'proposed facts' just don't line up with the scale that the polar caps are melting.
Simply put - I dispute the cause; not the evidence...
There is enough evidence to support the fact that there is a warming trend, but I dispute the cause. The 'proposed facts' just don't line up with the scale that the polar caps are melting.
Simply put - I dispute the cause; not the evidence...
Scott Weberpal
EF5
Essentailly they are trying to force Gore to debate them, something he refuses to do. Honestly, most anti-GW scientists have been thrown under the wheel, and if they are being discriminated because of Gore's viewpoint which they think is fraudulent, I don't see what is so bad about taking it to the courts.
Gore has run wild with his assumptions with no public rebuttal, that's all they are seeking.
Gore has run wild with his assumptions with no public rebuttal, that's all they are seeking.
Jason Foster
a reply on another weather forum
Below is a response I gave regarding global warming. I too hate that Al Gore is more about the profit side of the argument than actually caring and doing something about it, if it is indeed an issue. Here is my previous post:
Below is a response I gave regarding global warming. I too hate that Al Gore is more about the profit side of the argument than actually caring and doing something about it, if it is indeed an issue. Here is my previous post:
Jason Foster; said:
Last edited by a moderator:
Jim Saueressig
EF5
As I have said before there is no doubt the Earth cycles between hot and cold but whether or not we are helping or hurting it is a toss up, one thing I have no doubt about is that the pollution is bad for us and the environment both and should be curbed. These global warming alarmists however are just distracting people from the realities of pollution to make a few billion more bucks.
Rob Wadsworth
EF5
I think that it is high time that the 30k scientists opposed to the Global Warming scam go toe-to-toe with their best evidence and let the chips fall where they may. You can bet that I am rooting for the underdogs - the 30k. All they need do is to have enough evidence of another plausible cause and to put the CO2 argument to rest - as it should be.
My best guess of the warming trend is the possibility of the Earth's core heating from within and thereby gradually heating the ocean floor. We know that on a global scale, volcanism has been increasing along the 'ring of fire' over the last thirty years. If it is caused by large dosages of radiation from the Sun (including heat, light, and other/all sub-atomic particles) over the last thirty years - then it less to do with the accumulation of CO2 and more to do with the Sun - in essence. There can the mixing of all of the above that make it happen...
My best guess of the warming trend is the possibility of the Earth's core heating from within and thereby gradually heating the ocean floor. We know that on a global scale, volcanism has been increasing along the 'ring of fire' over the last thirty years. If it is caused by large dosages of radiation from the Sun (including heat, light, and other/all sub-atomic particles) over the last thirty years - then it less to do with the accumulation of CO2 and more to do with the Sun - in essence. There can the mixing of all of the above that make it happen...
Last edited by a moderator:
Connor McCrorey
EF3
Like many others I believe that GW exists, or at least that we are currently in a warming trend, but I am not at all sold on it being our fault. Maybe I just haven't seen enough evidence, but I do not plan on completely altering my lifestyle just to satisfy a theory.
Jim Saueressig
EF5
Take a look at the Time Machines Ice Cap.
Even till 2006 it varies but recovers. I will grant you that 2007 looks bad but it is still natural in my opinion. To me if you watch the right side that barely goes away it makes me think of an altering sea current on the left bringing warmer water.
CO2 shows China as the demon....
Temperatures? Look at 30's -40's Yes we are higher now but do you see a cyclic pattern? I do. Look at Alaska in 1845
Even till 2006 it varies but recovers. I will grant you that 2007 looks bad but it is still natural in my opinion. To me if you watch the right side that barely goes away it makes me think of an altering sea current on the left bringing warmer water.
CO2 shows China as the demon....
Temperatures? Look at 30's -40's Yes we are higher now but do you see a cyclic pattern? I do. Look at Alaska in 1845
MatthewCarman
I am not sold GW is our fault. The Earth has been in extreme warming periods before including the warming period in the Medieval ages that came before the little ice age. Greenland also used to be all Green. That is why it is called Greenland. If the snow on Greenland melts people will freak out and scream GW. I think Earth is just going through a natural life cycle. We may be making our planet a little warmer but I doubt it will change Earths life cycle. I also feel our records do not go back far enough.
I also don't think Gore deserved the Nobel Peace prize he received on GW.
I also don't think Gore deserved the Nobel Peace prize he received on GW.
Stephen Levine
EF4
It irks me to no end that the denial continues. It's scientific fact that our CO2 levels in the atmosphere has risen constantly and sharply since the dawning our our industrial age.
It has been shown time and time again through such things as soot in the snowy reaches of the Arctic that human kind has been a prime cause of the CO2 rise.
The very same resistance has happened through the decades when for intance, cigarette companies have sued to protect themselves within the shroud of lies that smoking does not dramatically increase the risk of lung cancer.
It is my hope that some day this denial will stop, and that we will listen for once to what our climate feedbacks are telling us.
Consider that the earth may not get uniformely warmer; instead it may simply get more and more erratic, unpredictable and dangerous for large masses of populations.
At the very least it does not hurt to invest in renewable energy sources in order to lower our CO2 footprint and create green jobs.
It has been shown time and time again through such things as soot in the snowy reaches of the Arctic that human kind has been a prime cause of the CO2 rise.
The very same resistance has happened through the decades when for intance, cigarette companies have sued to protect themselves within the shroud of lies that smoking does not dramatically increase the risk of lung cancer.
It is my hope that some day this denial will stop, and that we will listen for once to what our climate feedbacks are telling us.
Consider that the earth may not get uniformely warmer; instead it may simply get more and more erratic, unpredictable and dangerous for large masses of populations.
At the very least it does not hurt to invest in renewable energy sources in order to lower our CO2 footprint and create green jobs.
Jeff Snyder
EF5
Is anyone actually debating whether GW (or, more generally, global climate change - temp, sea level, ice, precip changes, ocean SSTs, etc) is occurring anymore? This is AMPLE evidence that global warming is happening. That's not the debate.
Why would Al Gore debate someone? HE'S NOT A SCIENTIST! He's a politician who has taken up a cause. In the process, like most politicians, he's polarized entire populations, many who reach their "conclusion" based solely on what they think could or could not happen, regardless of any physical evidence to support such a belief. The global climate change (since we should include not only temperature changes, but also sea level, ice, precipitation, ocean temperatures and salinity, etc., changes) issue has turned into a blue vs. red issue - i.e. it has turned into a political issue. To some degree, this is expected, since political policy has been brought into the global warming arena. However, it has dumbed down the populace as people listen to their favorite talk radio host, one who doesn't have any idea about the science behind climate change, to form their own opinion. Rather, I should say, they just take the "opinion" of their favored talk show host. Yes, this goes both ways, both the "OMG The world will be aflame tomorrow!" crowd and the "global warming is a crock of garbage" crowd. Interestingly, it seems as though it's becoming increasingly trendy to join the "pff, global warming is scam" crowd. There has been a misrepresentation of the science by both sides, and it doesn't take much of a Google search to find such rampant misreprentations... Example: big story run by some about how the ice in the N. Hemi. has grown at a record rate this fall. Well, it has, but it's growing from a near RECORD LOW, and a look at the trends certainly tells a story much different from the "ice growing at record pace - GW is crap!" false conclusion.
I'm not necessarily saying the global warming is completely and certainly being caused by human activity, and many scientists would agree that anthropogenic forcings are not 100% certain. However, there seems to be considerable more evidence to support it than to refute it. Are humans causing it? Again, there is some evidence to support such a notion. Yes, the world HAS been warmer in the past without humans. There are plenty of NATURAL forcings that can cause global climate change. However, just because it's happened naturally in the past does NOT mean that it CAN'T happen any other way! You cannot draw that conclusion. The world may well be warming without humans, but it's the RATE at which the warming has increased in the past 100 years that is anomalous. As such, the evidence would seem to support the idea that it's certainly POSSIBLE that humans can affect the climate. The residence times of some greenhouse gases is on the order of centuries and millenia!
As with many issues, the truth probably lies between the two extremes... The Earth likely will not become engulfed in flames tomorrow (nor will sea level rise 30 feet by 2010), but it also seems likely to me that the observed climate change (temp, sea levle, ice extent, etc) is being enhanced by human activity (greenhouse gas release, deforestation, land use changes, etc). Just because the messanger may have an agenda does not mean that the entirety of the message is false.
FWIW: Are these 30,000 folks the same economists, sociologists, and TV "meteorologists" who signed the petition to Congress? Heck, that list included many actual scientists who merely stated that it was NOT certain that humans were causing global warming. There are examples on that list of scientists who have said that GW may or may not be significantly affected by humans, and those folks were counted as being "against" the idea of anthropogenic GW by the makers of that list. *rolls eyes* Yes, there are legitimate climate scientists who do not believe humans are having any effect on climate, and,heck, it's good that there is disagreement. In the end, it will be for the betterment of climate science that doubt exists. However, misrepresentation and politicalization of the science only misleads people and undermines the science.
Why would Al Gore debate someone? HE'S NOT A SCIENTIST! He's a politician who has taken up a cause. In the process, like most politicians, he's polarized entire populations, many who reach their "conclusion" based solely on what they think could or could not happen, regardless of any physical evidence to support such a belief. The global climate change (since we should include not only temperature changes, but also sea level, ice, precipitation, ocean temperatures and salinity, etc., changes) issue has turned into a blue vs. red issue - i.e. it has turned into a political issue. To some degree, this is expected, since political policy has been brought into the global warming arena. However, it has dumbed down the populace as people listen to their favorite talk radio host, one who doesn't have any idea about the science behind climate change, to form their own opinion. Rather, I should say, they just take the "opinion" of their favored talk show host. Yes, this goes both ways, both the "OMG The world will be aflame tomorrow!" crowd and the "global warming is a crock of garbage" crowd. Interestingly, it seems as though it's becoming increasingly trendy to join the "pff, global warming is scam" crowd. There has been a misrepresentation of the science by both sides, and it doesn't take much of a Google search to find such rampant misreprentations... Example: big story run by some about how the ice in the N. Hemi. has grown at a record rate this fall. Well, it has, but it's growing from a near RECORD LOW, and a look at the trends certainly tells a story much different from the "ice growing at record pace - GW is crap!" false conclusion.
I'm not necessarily saying the global warming is completely and certainly being caused by human activity, and many scientists would agree that anthropogenic forcings are not 100% certain. However, there seems to be considerable more evidence to support it than to refute it. Are humans causing it? Again, there is some evidence to support such a notion. Yes, the world HAS been warmer in the past without humans. There are plenty of NATURAL forcings that can cause global climate change. However, just because it's happened naturally in the past does NOT mean that it CAN'T happen any other way! You cannot draw that conclusion. The world may well be warming without humans, but it's the RATE at which the warming has increased in the past 100 years that is anomalous. As such, the evidence would seem to support the idea that it's certainly POSSIBLE that humans can affect the climate. The residence times of some greenhouse gases is on the order of centuries and millenia!
As with many issues, the truth probably lies between the two extremes... The Earth likely will not become engulfed in flames tomorrow (nor will sea level rise 30 feet by 2010), but it also seems likely to me that the observed climate change (temp, sea levle, ice extent, etc) is being enhanced by human activity (greenhouse gas release, deforestation, land use changes, etc). Just because the messanger may have an agenda does not mean that the entirety of the message is false.
FWIW: Are these 30,000 folks the same economists, sociologists, and TV "meteorologists" who signed the petition to Congress? Heck, that list included many actual scientists who merely stated that it was NOT certain that humans were causing global warming. There are examples on that list of scientists who have said that GW may or may not be significantly affected by humans, and those folks were counted as being "against" the idea of anthropogenic GW by the makers of that list. *rolls eyes* Yes, there are legitimate climate scientists who do not believe humans are having any effect on climate, and,heck, it's good that there is disagreement. In the end, it will be for the betterment of climate science that doubt exists. However, misrepresentation and politicalization of the science only misleads people and undermines the science.
Last edited by a moderator:
Jim Saueressig
EF5
That part I won't dispute but look at all the bogus alternatives they offer. Solar energy is a joke unless it is placed directly on the premises that requires the energy. The expense to create and maintain the current solar energy plants in California is way up there.
Alcohol is the biggest scam yet. What is it they say? If they converted all the grains and such in the world to alcohol it would only cover 13% of Americas current fuel needs?
So far there are no real alternatives but obviously we need some answers.
Similar threads
