Paul Austin
I couldn't agree more. Let's focus on curbing pollution in general. It would probably help the overall enviro-cause to spend less effort on demonizing CO2.
30,000 Scientists to Sue Al Gore for Fraud
- Thread starter Jim Saueressig
- Start date
I couldn't agree more. Let's focus on curbing pollution in general. It would probably help the overall enviro-cause to spend less effort on demonizing CO2.
Dave Gallaher
EF5
I just read all the arguments in this thread. Taken together, they provide solid and irrefutable evidence that humans are the causation of Verbal Warming.
Mike Smith
Only in climate science...
As the 'blank' sun continues...
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/mdi_igr/512/
And world temperatures continue failing to warm for ten years....
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1998/to:2009
We learn that total sea ice has not changed significantly since 1979...
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/14/global-sea-ice-trend-since-1979-surprising/#more-4540
while the Associated Press says in a story filed today, Mother Nature, of course, is oblivious to the federal government's machinations. Ironically, 2008 is on pace to be a slightly cooler year in a steadily rising temperature trend line. Experts say it's thanks to a La Nina weather variation. While skeptics are already using it as evidence of some kind of cooling trend, it actually illustrates how fast the world is warming. http://apnews.myway.com/article/20081214/D952LKP00.html
Of course the link to the Hadley data above shows anything but a "steadily rising temperature trend line." And, only in climate science would the recent cooling illustrate "how fast the world is warming."
As the 'blank' sun continues...
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/mdi_igr/512/
And world temperatures continue failing to warm for ten years....
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1998/to:2009
We learn that total sea ice has not changed significantly since 1979...
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/14/global-sea-ice-trend-since-1979-surprising/#more-4540
while the Associated Press says in a story filed today, Mother Nature, of course, is oblivious to the federal government's machinations. Ironically, 2008 is on pace to be a slightly cooler year in a steadily rising temperature trend line. Experts say it's thanks to a La Nina weather variation. While skeptics are already using it as evidence of some kind of cooling trend, it actually illustrates how fast the world is warming. http://apnews.myway.com/article/20081214/D952LKP00.html
Of course the link to the Hadley data above shows anything but a "steadily rising temperature trend line." And, only in climate science would the recent cooling illustrate "how fast the world is warming."
Last edited by a moderator:
Scott Weberpal
EF5
Here's the actual petition with over 30,000 signatures from scientists. 9,000 of the signatures are from PhD's.
http://www.petitionproject.org/
http://www.petitionproject.org/
Dave Gallaher
EF5
Well, the good thing about this is that to win the suit, they will have to legally prove intent to defraud on behalf of Al and others who share his opinion. If they can categorically prove that GW is a non-issue regarding human activities, then the issue will be put to rest.
Personally, I don't think they can prove fraud. And if they can't, then the whole lawsuit is just another public relations hype.
Personally, I don't think they can prove fraud. And if they can't, then the whole lawsuit is just another public relations hype.
Robert Dewey
EF5
I don't think they actually intend on winning... it's more of a statement.
Scott Weberpal
EF5
The petition itself is not to sue Al Gore, the petition is basically to say they don't agree with the 1997 Kyoto Agreement that CO2 is causing a rise in global temperature and needs to be reversed.
Scott Weberpal
EF5
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6
"CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.†- Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.
“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.†- Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.
Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.†- UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.
“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.†- U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.
“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.†– . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.
“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.†- Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.
“Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.†- Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.
"CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.†- Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.
“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.†- Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.
Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.†- UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.
“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.†- U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.
“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.†– . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.
“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.†- Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.
“Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.†- Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.
Damon Poole
EF2
All in good satire when it comes to Al. All in good satire. Especially since he and his pals have done such a good job renaming, and intimidating skeptics who disagree with his hype.
Last edited by a moderator:
Dennis Sherrod
EF5
I am pretty impressed with the poll on this one. I had felt I was one of the few people for years saying the idea that this Global Warming stuff was more hoopla and a normal event with some minor input from us, than us totally causing the great warm up. I guess one of the reasons we hear so much about it, are that the ones thinking it is all us are the ones mainly speaking up and those of us who disagree, do not say much about it.
Dave Gallaher
EF5
Won't it risk being classified as a frivolous lawsuit in this case? I guess if publicity is the primary goal, it is effective.
For me (a non-scientist), the whole issue is entirely undecided, as neither side has been able to be utterly convincing.
Jason Harris
EF5
Here's one thing we should all be able to agree on: how you vote on a poll
is not climatological evidence.
Meanwhile, here's a new article out on ice loss (just today):
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28249708/
--
WASHINGTON - More than 2 trillion tons of land ice in Greenland, Antarctica and Alaska have melted since 2003, according to new NASA satellite data that show the latest signs of what scientists say is global warming.
[. . .]
Scientists studying sea ice will announce that parts of the Arctic north of Alaska were 9 to 10 degrees warmer this past fall, a strong early indication of what researchers call the Arctic amplification effect. That's when the Arctic warms faster than predicted, and warming there is accelerating faster than elsewhere on the globe.
[. . .]
As sea ice melts, the Arctic waters absorb more heat in the summer, having lost the reflective powers of vast packs of white ice. That absorbed heat is released into the air in the fall. That has led to autumn temperatures in the last several years that are six to 10 degrees warmer than they were in the 1980s, said research scientist Julienne Stroeve at the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colo.
That's a strong and early impact of global warming, she said.
"The pace of change is starting to outstrip our ability to keep up with it, in terms of our understanding of it," said Mark Serreze, senior scientist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colo., a co-author of the Arctic amplification study.
[. . .]
A second study suggests even larger amounts of frozen methane are trapped in lakebeds and sea bottoms around Siberia and they are starting to bubble to the surface in some spots in alarming amounts, said Igor Semiletov, a professor at the University of Alaska in Fairbanks. In late summer, Semiletov found methane bubbling up from parts of the East Siberian Sea and Laptev Sea at levels that were 10 times higher than they were in the mid-1990s, he said based on a study this summer.
The amounts of methane in the region could dramatically increase global warming if they get released, he said.
-------
So, remember it's trends that climate are concerned with. Every year does not have to be hottest than the previous one to create a trend. Don't forget about higher lows too. I know it's funny to many people to talk about climate change during winter, and for some people it almost seems as though winter has to cease to exist for them to believe in climate change. I guess for those who believe NASA is part of a conspiracy, all satellite data will be discounted.
Damon, maybe you need to add the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colo., and the University of Alaska (maybe all universities that study climate?) to the conspiracy list--oh, and of course Russia's methane.
is not climatological evidence.
Meanwhile, here's a new article out on ice loss (just today):
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28249708/
--
WASHINGTON - More than 2 trillion tons of land ice in Greenland, Antarctica and Alaska have melted since 2003, according to new NASA satellite data that show the latest signs of what scientists say is global warming.
[. . .]
Scientists studying sea ice will announce that parts of the Arctic north of Alaska were 9 to 10 degrees warmer this past fall, a strong early indication of what researchers call the Arctic amplification effect. That's when the Arctic warms faster than predicted, and warming there is accelerating faster than elsewhere on the globe.
[. . .]
As sea ice melts, the Arctic waters absorb more heat in the summer, having lost the reflective powers of vast packs of white ice. That absorbed heat is released into the air in the fall. That has led to autumn temperatures in the last several years that are six to 10 degrees warmer than they were in the 1980s, said research scientist Julienne Stroeve at the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colo.
That's a strong and early impact of global warming, she said.
"The pace of change is starting to outstrip our ability to keep up with it, in terms of our understanding of it," said Mark Serreze, senior scientist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colo., a co-author of the Arctic amplification study.
[. . .]
A second study suggests even larger amounts of frozen methane are trapped in lakebeds and sea bottoms around Siberia and they are starting to bubble to the surface in some spots in alarming amounts, said Igor Semiletov, a professor at the University of Alaska in Fairbanks. In late summer, Semiletov found methane bubbling up from parts of the East Siberian Sea and Laptev Sea at levels that were 10 times higher than they were in the mid-1990s, he said based on a study this summer.
The amounts of methane in the region could dramatically increase global warming if they get released, he said.
-------
So, remember it's trends that climate are concerned with. Every year does not have to be hottest than the previous one to create a trend. Don't forget about higher lows too. I know it's funny to many people to talk about climate change during winter, and for some people it almost seems as though winter has to cease to exist for them to believe in climate change. I guess for those who believe NASA is part of a conspiracy, all satellite data will be discounted.
Damon, maybe you need to add the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colo., and the University of Alaska (maybe all universities that study climate?) to the conspiracy list--oh, and of course Russia's methane.
Mike Smith
It is correct that a poll is not climate science, but neither is an MSNBC article.
You are contending that Alaska ice is melting faster after one of its coldest summers in history?
From the Anchorage Daily News, www.adn.com/news/environment/story/518517.html
Summer has been one of Alaska's coldest
High temperatures this season were 3rd lowest on record
By CRAIG MEDRED
[email protected]
Published: September 7th, 2008 12:04 AM
Summer is officially over in Alaska, and if you got out in the sun to enjoy both days of it you were lucky.
Those were the two July days the temperature at the offices of the National Weather Service in Anchorage hit 70 degrees or better.
"Those temperatures occurred at the beginning of the month (of July) and were immediately followed by a long stretch of cool and wet weather.
"With only two days above 70 degrees this year, that sets a new record for the fewest days to reach 70,'' the weather-watching agency reported Friday.
Add to the lack of heat and sunshine what the agency calls "an astonishing 77%" of days colder than normal, and you get the picture.
This summer was every bit as bad as you thought it was.
The article you cite says the arctic is "melting fast." I say, "With record cold?" This makes no sense, especially in view of the contention that it is worse "north of Alaska." Here is the sea ice data: www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent.png
which shows nothing extraordinary occurred this autumn.
Anthony Watts has done an extraordinary (and entertaining) job debunking some of the Siberian "warming" referred to in the MSNBC article, http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/11/...dd-russian-temperature-anomaly-its-all-pipes/ .
The article about increased melting, as excerpted, does not pass the meteorology 101 test (which should be required of any climate "science" article) in that it talks about "warming" when actual measured temperatures and measured related parameters (in this case, sea ice) show cooling.
There are other studies that show the ice is now growing (for example, wattsupwiththat.com/2008/11/27/glaciers-in-norway-alaska-growing-again/ ).
One does not have to believe in conspiracies to believe the IPCC's global warming hypothesis is deeply flawed.
Jason Harris
EF5
Mike, you're pretty consistent with both the cherrypicking and the straw man fallacy. I'm not saying MSNBC is an authority--but the sources they're quoting from are--the very agencies in charge of monitoring snow and ice, from both universities and the government. It's not an article specific to MSNBC anyway, but the Associated Press. Did you read the entire article? It's the trend with alaska that matters. The article noted that Alaska had some heavy snowfalls that reduced the rate of melting, but that overall it's still on a trend of melting. That's why net loss of ice and snow statistics matter:
"The news was better for Alaska. After a precipitous drop in 2005, land ice increased slightly in 2008 because of large winter snowfalls, Luthcke said. Since 2003, when the NASA satellite started taking measurements, Alaska has lost 400 billion tons of land ice." So yes, Alaska can have from year-to-year colder or warmer weather but what matters is the larger patterns--and that's the loss of "400 billion tons of land ice." From year to year it's just weather. Decades and centuries allows us to see climatic trends.
"The news was better for Alaska. After a precipitous drop in 2005, land ice increased slightly in 2008 because of large winter snowfalls, Luthcke said. Since 2003, when the NASA satellite started taking measurements, Alaska has lost 400 billion tons of land ice." So yes, Alaska can have from year-to-year colder or warmer weather but what matters is the larger patterns--and that's the loss of "400 billion tons of land ice." From year to year it's just weather. Decades and centuries allows us to see climatic trends.
Mike Smith
Jason,
I was commenting on what you posted.
Mike
I was commenting on what you posted.
Mike
Similar threads
