30,000 Scientists to Sue Al Gore for Fraud

[Jason Harris]

It's fine to say "Facts are facts, it doesn't matter where they originate."
And I agree, but that's not what I see in the previous statements; I see selective offering of facts to distort the larger picture.
And then the ignoring of points like these:

--
In 2006, accelerating glaciers spewed an estimated 192 billion tons of Antarctic ice into the sea, scientists calculate.

The West Antarctica ice sheet lost some 132 billion tons, while the Antarctic Peninsula, the tongue of land that juts up towards South America, lost around 60 million tons.
---
Notice for example, how with this quote here about Greenland [below], I could have quoted from any particular statistic to emphasize the melting increase, the fact it's not as great a problem as some thought, or that it's a summer issue in particular, but each detail by itself doesn't' tell the whole picture: Greenland is melting faster. The North Pole is melting faster--so much that new shipping routes are opening up that were once fabled hopes, and some sea ice fluctuations in the South Pole don't somehow invalidate the larger trend of net ice loss. And yes, I'm going to trust climatological publications that are science-based much more than cherry-picked political think tanks. Al Gore never has to enter the equation, nor does James Inhofe.

--
Once at the base of the ice sheet, the water seems to have drained away within a day. "It was either tapping into an existing drainage system or forming a new system" at the base of the ice sheet, Das says.

To get a broader view of how such water is affecting Greenland's ice, Ian Joughin of the University of Washington, Seattle, US, led a separate study using satellite images and GPS measurements. His team assembled the first map of the movement of the ice sheet and glaciers in Greenland, and found that each summer, the ice sheets slid toward the ocean 50 to 100% faster than they did during the rest of the year.

However, glaciers, which already flow much faster than the surrounding ice sheet, speed up by less than 15% during the summer, according to the study.

Nonetheless, the lubrication from the meltwater could make Greenland lose from 10 to 25% more ice over the 21st century than if this effect was not at work, Joughin and colleagues estimate.

"The good news is that increased melting [with continued global warming] doesn't seem like it's going to cause a runaway effect like some people had predicted," Joughin says.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13729

 

[MatthewCarman]

How do we know when GW actually started? Do we have accurate data that actually tells us how warm it was say 1000 years ago compared to today? What caused the "little ice age"? It was very warm before that period in time to and it became cold again. Maybe we are headed into another GC period? How accurate is data when it only goes back so far. If we have accurate data from before the 1900's I would like to know how it is accurate.

 

[K Johnson]

Wow. For two years I have been waiting for a thread to appear on ST that I feel I can positively contribute to. And finally this appears, it is perfect, this is what I do. This is what I get paid for. And Ive had far too many GnT's to put forward as coherant a reply as I would like. But Im too fired up not to try!

I am a hardcore eco extremist veggie whacko - in the eyes of my psycho harcore republican gas guzzling best friend. This argument is one we have been debating for years. For me, the argument is based not on science. The science is there for all to see - Co2 emmisions from human activity is having an effect on the climate. This is a contributing factor to climate change. Yes - there are other factors. The debate is how much? But who cares? For me the argument comes down soley to responsibilty.

We are affecting the climate. Natural occurances could outweigh the influence our CO2 outputs have. Or they may not. Maybe a massive volcano could do more damage in a year than humans could do in a century. Maybe a solar flare / burst whatevertheyrecalled could wipe out the planet in minutes. But these things are not happening. Our CO2 output IS happening. Why should we ignore our responsibilities because something worse and outside of our control may or may not happen in our lifetime, or even in the next few centuries.

My biggest fear is not of 'losing' the CO2 debate to the politics of 'GW'. I never thought that humans were the only things responsible for GW. My fear is that if a bunch of republicans with a chip on their shoulder debate and win the argument of GW, and then the whole notion of sustainability and an eco/ clean planet will also get wiped out at the same time.

No matter how much effect humans have on GW / climate change - whether we are 2% responsible or 95% - it is vital we get control of our pollution, waste, and irrisponsible use of resources. If these 30,000 scientists and politicians get their way, I fear the world will see it as a green flag to go back to the gas guzzling water wasting resource raping ways we have seen for the past 150 years.

Its non sensical. The only analagy I can come up with at this late and drunken hour is toilets. All the water that comes in to our homes ( in the industrialised world) is grade A drinking water. This water has gone through expensive, and intensive cleaning and processing. Most of this water goes to flush the toilet. This just makes no sense! All that energy and money is literally being flushed down the pan. We need to rethink how we do things, to reduce energy use, pollution, and to reduce expenditure. Reducing CO2 is a side affect of being a responsible human being. A few scientists with a sense of political grandeur could blow a lot more than some lefty whacko ideology.

 

[Jason Harris]

Let's not be too hasty about making this a dem/repub issue. After all, the last two political candidates both "believed" in climate change. As does Arnold S. in CA, etc. And a lot of people on ST are no doubt independents or libertarians politically as well. In fact, with no scientific polling available on this issue, I bet there are more libertarians on ST than the nation in general. Just a feeling.

 

[Brandon Sullivan]

Poll added! hope its not too late

 

[Damon Poole]

I hope they clean Al Bore's clock! Between him, Hansen, and the IPCC, the science of Climatology has been ruined by a combined perversion of Ecology and Political Science. Natural Climate Change is a scientific fact. Completely Anthropogenic Global Warming is a total science fiction hoax!

 

[Jason Harris]

Damon, you forgot about NASA, they're part of the conspiracy too:

"There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities."

OMG, it's even on their mission page! Al Gore must have paid them off with all that hybrid vehicle money!http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa-n/climate/climate_weather.html

See that phrase "most of the warming" is from "human activities"--better go protest against NASA ASAP.
Whoa, you better bust NOAA also:

"Human activity has been increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (mostly carbon dioxide from combustion of coal, oil, and gas; plus a few other trace gases). There is no scientific debate on this point. Pre-industrial levels of carbon dioxide (prior to the start of the Industrial Revolution) were about 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv), and current levels are greater than 380 ppmv and increasing at a rate of 1.9 ppm yr-1 since 2000. The global concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere today far exceeds the natural range over the last 650,000 years of 180 to 300 ppmv."

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
OMG, the conspiracy is so far reaching, who will save the OIL companies now? Wow, good thing there's no competitive other fuel right now, whew.
What a relief Al Gore hasn't won yet where it counts. Just a lot of scientists, and how sly of them not to mention him.

Seriously though, since most people are voting that it's mainly a natural cause, where does this belief come? Where is the evidence? Others have already shown the carbon from volcanoes isn't the culprit, so alas. I used to think ok, maybe the solar factor was involved, but studies have shown that we should be cooling if it were up to the sun.
---
"over the last 20 years, solar activity has been slowly declining, which should have led to a drop in global temperatures if the theory was correct."
--
but it's not: "A new scientific study concludes that changes in the Sun's output cannot be causing modern-day climate change.

It shows that for the last 20 years, the Sun's output has declined, yet temperatures on Earth have risen."
Wait, I get it, the sun is in on the conspiracy too! Dang, game over.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6290228.stm

 

[Ryan McGinnis]

The only analagy I can come up with at this late and drunken hour is toilets. All the water that comes in to our homes ( in the industrialised world) is grade A drinking water. This water has gone through expensive, and intensive cleaning and processing. Most of this water goes to flush the toilet. This just makes no sense!

Personally, I like that my toilet water is cleaned and processed -- if they took that away, I'd have to move my Aquafina bootlegging operation back to the creek.

 

[Dan Robinson]

There needs to be an option on the poll for "I haven't formed an opinion yet". We had a poll similar to this earlier this year, BTW, which indicated that most still had an open mind:

http://www.stormtrack.org/forum/showthread.php?t=13945&highlight=poll

 

[Brandon Sullivan]

There needs to be an option on the poll for "I haven't formed an opinion yet". We had a poll similar to this earlier this year, BTW, which indicated that most still had an open mind:

http://www.stormtrack.org/forum/showthread.php?t=13945&highlight=poll

Sure. I have added it in there.

 

[Damon Poole]

Why I don't BUY AGW.

I didn't forget NASA, that's Hansen's employer. My disbelief is in the Global Warming hype being put out by Al Bore, Hansen, Heidi Cullen, and their ilk. My skepticism is backed by many hours in college studying Astronomy, Biology, Computer Science, Earth Science, Oceanography, Physical and Historical Geology, Physical Geography, Weather and Climate, and Natural Hazards. These studies taught me that there are many types of forcings involved in Climate Change, other than the AGW garbage being forced down people's throats by Self Appointed Saviors of the Stupid in Society like Earth Share, The Ad Council, and so on.

Additionally, my degree is in Mass Communication, which makes me well aware of the sheer ignorance and bias in the name of profits for companies like GE and NBC, which hype AGW stories for profits. Fortunately, not many people are buying the whole thing as NBC's profits are through the floor. The Weather Channel's Environmental department, including Heidi Cullen was axed due to the falling profits.

So, Jason, it's not only big oil that's in it for the money. It happens on BOTH sides. Just ask Al Bore, hopefully, the Judge will. The question is, will the sodium pentathal shot work?
Time will tell.

Damon, you forgot about NASA, they're part of the conspiracy too:

"There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities."

OMG, it's even on their mission page! Al Gore must have paid them off with all that hybrid vehicle money!http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa-n/climate/climate_weather.html

See that phrase "most of the warming" is from "human activities"--better go protest against NASA ASAP.
Whoa, you better bust NOAA also:

"Human activity has been increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (mostly carbon dioxide from combustion of coal, oil, and gas; plus a few other trace gases). There is no scientific debate on this point. Pre-industrial levels of carbon dioxide (prior to the start of the Industrial Revolution) were about 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv), and current levels are greater than 380 ppmv and increasing at a rate of 1.9 ppm yr-1 since 2000. The global concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere today far exceeds the natural range over the last 650,000 years of 180 to 300 ppmv."

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
OMG, the conspiracy is so far reaching, who will save the OIL companies now? Wow, good thing there's no competitive other fuel right now, whew.
What a relief Al Gore hasn't won yet where it counts. Just a lot of scientists, and how sly of them not to mention him.

Seriously though, since most people are voting that it's mainly a natural cause, where does this belief come? Where is the evidence? Others have already shown the carbon from volcanoes isn't the culprit, so alas. I used to think ok, maybe the solar factor was involved, but studies have shown that we should be cooling if it were up to the sun.
---
"over the last 20 years, solar activity has been slowly declining, which should have led to a drop in global temperatures if the theory was correct."
--
but it's not: "A new scientific study concludes that changes in the Sun's output cannot be causing modern-day climate change.

It shows that for the last 20 years, the Sun's output has declined, yet temperatures on Earth have risen."
Wait, I get it, the sun is in on the conspiracy too! Dang, game over.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6290228.stm

 

[Jason Harris]

And what about NOAA and the sun? And don't forget the geologists monitoring glaciers. Making the glaciers are part of the conspiracy too along with the sun? And look, Peru must be in the conspiracy too:
"Quelccaya in southern Peru, the world's largest tropical ice cap, is retreating at about 60 meters (200 feet) a year, up from six meters (20 feet) a year in the 1960s, Thompson said.

Melting is also visible in the other Andean countries — Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia.

In Peru, home to 70 percent of Earth's tropical glaciers, the Andes mountains have lost at least 22 percent of their glacier area since 1970 and the melt is speeding up, according to Peru's National Resources Institute, INRENA, a government agency.
Rock shows through lavishly snow-covered mountains throughout the Peruvian Andes. The Broggi glacier has disappeared altogether. Ice caves once popular with tourists are gone.

On Cordillera Blanca, which has 35 percent of Peru's glaciers, Marco Zapata, head of INRENA's glaciology unit, trudges up a barren, rocky mountain slope that until recently was covered by a centuries-old layer of ice. He points to a small, white mound on the retreating Pastoruri glacier, 5,100 meters (17,000 feet) above sea level."
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/02/11/america/LA-GEN-Peru-Glacier-Retreat.php

Also, shouldn't the poll be changed to "modern global warming"? Otherwise, seems like a straw man poll. Also, the word "disregard" implies a moral charge rather than a simple cause/effect. Why does the issue need to be loaded with moral and political judgments? You can believe in climate change as a reality and look forward to it: more CAPE?
Frankly, "belief" is a problem. If you (one), doesn't want to have to make any changes you could always have the mindset, "ok, I'm just going to dismiss whatever I disagree with as part of this deep-reaching conspiracy, so all these satellite measurements and ice-core samples, heck, what do they prove anyway? bogus." How many people have actually changed their minds based on evidence? I have yet to hear anyone offer a consensus of peer-reviewed scholarly sources from climatologists using the scientific method disagreeing.

to put it simply, there's overwhelming evidence for human produced greenhouse gasses warming the earth as NOAA states "There is no scientific debate on this point."

Meanwhile, NATO is debating how to handle the power struggle for the resources resulting from melting;
--
The 150-page manifesto for a new Nato, penned by five former chiefs of staff and senior Nato commanders from the US, UK, Germany, France and the Netherlands, also points to the likely friction in the Arctic as a result of climate change.

The Arctic thaw has already created "minor tensions" between Russia and Nato member Norway over fishing rights around the Spitsbergen archipelago. "The islands of Spitsbergen ... have large deposits of gas and oil that are currently locked under a frozen continental shelf," the document states.

"If global warming were to allow this to become a viable source of energy, a serious conflict could emerge between Russia and Norway." This "potential crisis" would draw in the US, Canada and Denmark "competing for large and viable energy resources and precious raw materials".
--
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/10/eu.climatechange

 

[Rob Wadsworth]

Al Gore and his carnivorous crew would probably do more good for the threat that exists by getting their rich bee-hinds out of the way of the press, and let the 30k scientists hash it out with him for real.

What does Al Gore have to lose - just maybe - his credibility? Maybe that is why he is running away from this challenge - eh? The thought of having to give back that big, shiny medal is too much - I guess. Or what does the 30k have to lose - except their cover stories? Not likely. Having/allowing Gore - to continue hiding behind his Nobel Prize - just doesn't cut it with me. People want to believe in Gore because they are enthralled with his pseudo achievement in the global politics of climatology.
Clinton must have told him 'I'll make you famous so I could look that much better when we stand together for pictures! (LOL!Howl!)
Politics can be the most ugly game there is. C'mon Gore - your mommy's skirt won't help you now!
Just some observations...

 

[Damon Poole]

Response To Jason's Questions

Anybody who studies Earth Science, or any scientific discipline related to it, knows that glaciers have always advanced and retreated over geologic time. This has always been due to climatic variability, including the Peruvian Glaciers, The Arctic, and Antarctica. That doesn't mean that AGW is solely responsible. It is also known that the Sun, and our position related to the sun, has a very large and measurable influence on our climate, as well as our oceans.

As far as the NOAA links you mentioned, the FAQ's are straight out of the IPCC script. IPCC is a political organization that admits that it doesn't do any real scientific research. It was IPCC that started the whole "There is no scientific debate" issue. Gore drank the Kool Aid, and is taking the credit for saying it. Sound familiar? It's not the first time that's happened.

That by itself should make any IPCC findings highly suspect. In addition, computer models are good, but they are subject to errors in data and programming which can cause huge problems with the forecasts they produce. Why else haven't computers completely replaced operational forecasters? It's because a human forecaster can beat the best of computer models. This is because of experience that cannot be programmed into models.

Finally, as far as NATO goes, they're talking about Geopolitics, which provides a much larger base for AGW than Geoscience.

 

[Ryan McGinnis]

I didn't forget NASA, that's Hansen's employer. My disbelief is in the Global Warming hype being put out by Al Bore, Hansen, Heidi Cullen, and their ilk.

As a student in Mass Communications, I would hope you would realize how difficult it is to take anyone seriously who thinks that it is clever to "rename" people they disagree with.