30,000 Scientists to Sue Al Gore for Fraud

[Rob Wadsworth]

Chlorofluorocarbons have been removed from use for years, cars that are 0% emissions have been available for the last three years, wind energy is going crazy with setups and usage. This cleanup didn't start at the beginning of Gore's GW campaign; this has been ongoing for decades.

There has been vast improvements in emissions of hydrocarbons and CO2 for a long time now. There is no proof that CO2 and global warming is exact and the cause without a shadow of a doubt. The point is, the politicization of this has become a carnival and Gore is the one wearing the funny red nose and makeup. Let the 30k scientists go toe to toe with Gore's boys and see what happens. Even THAT will not be conclusive; as the exact cause is just not known. Anyone can speculate, and believe me - they have.

 

[Damon Poole]

AMEN Rob, AMEN! Tell it like it is. There's too much ecopolitical conjecture, & not enough geoscientific context!

In science, you have to look at BOTH sides of a problem before you accept one solution or another. That's how critical thinking and science work, especially in trying to forecast something. In other words, you always have to ask yourself, "Are You Sure?". Even if the answer seems to be yes, it's vital to test your hypothesis again and again, make new observations, and list your uncertainties along with your interpretations of what the model data seems to be telling you. Most politicians and journalists are not scientists, so they'll never fully grasp the concept of verification, even though journalists should know better. That's how Gore and the IPCC get away with their scare tactics and make other politicians drink their KOOL-AID. Fortunately, there are a lot more than just a loud handfull who are questioning the AGW hypothesis and refusing to drink the hype. 31,000 scientists, and counting, can't be wrong!

 

[K Johnson]

AMEN Rob, AMEN! Tell it like it is. There's too much ecopolitical conjecture, & not enough geoscientific context!

That's how Gore and the IPCC get away with their scare tactics and make other politicians drink their KOOL-AID.

Ok, I can understand not having respect for Gore. Personally, I like the guy, but politics is politics and even I can accept that he has his own agenda. But the IPCC? Why do you class them together with Gore? It seems to me that many people are ignoring, or not respecting the IPCC purely because they do not like what the IPCC has to say.

The IPCC WG1 wrote the paper 'Climate Change 2007 - The Physical Science Basis'. This paper looked at world wide research, from organisations and universities on every side of the debate. The paper was hosted by NOAA and UCAR, and was chaired by Professor Qin Dahe who:

'... is an internationally renowned climatologist and expert on global change. He is currently the Director of State Key Laboratory of Cryoshperic Sciences, Vice President of International Geographical Union, President of Chinese Meteorological Society, and Vice Chairman of Commission on Population, Resource and Environment of the 11th National Committee of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference. In June this year he received the 53rd World Meteorological Organization (WMO) Prize'

'Over the past three decades, Professor Qin has been actively and productively engaged in cryospheric and global change studies. He has participated and taken a leading role in numerous scientific exploration and research projects in the South Pole, North Pole, Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau and the western region of China. He has systematically studied the “decayâ€￾ process of ice cap in the South Pole and used a quantitative approach to characterize the regional patterns of the evolution of snow to glacier ice. His research has investigated the relationship between the physical/chemical processes in the surface snow layer of South Pole ice cap and the environmental records of climate. The research findings in several areas, such as the relationship between the distribution of stable isotopes in precipitation and air temperature, sources and pathways of water vapor and multiple impurities, are still the most comprehensive and in-depth results of research on South Pole ice cap.

Professor Qin has carried out pioneering work on the monitoring and experiment of modern processes and biogeochemical cycling in snow and ice cover, demonstrating the applicability and validity of climatic signals derived from mountainous ice cores. His research on glacial evolution, modern environmental changes and ice cores in the Mt. Qomolangma (Everest) area has discovered the characteristics of modern climate change in the highest elevations of the earth.'

The IPCC WG1 paper was also chaired by Susan Soloman, who:
'is Senior Scientist at NOAA’s Earth SystemResearch Laboratory in Boulder, Colorado. Has been a scientist at NOAA for more than 26 years. Her work over that time has focused on understanding the cause of ozone depletion. In 2000, she received this nation’s highest scientific award, the National Medal of Science, in recognition of that work. She is the author or co-author of more than 150 scientific publications... An atmospheric chemist, ... In 1986 and '87, she led expeditions to Antarctica, working through the darkness of the polar winter and bringing back confirmation that there was indeed a growing ozone hole and that chemicals known as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were causing it. Those conclusions helped lead to a global ban on CFCs.'

As well as these highly respected chairs, there was involvement in the report from Britain and America's most respected Universities.

You don't have to like what the IPCC report says, but I cannot understand how you can not respect the findings of people who are ultimately far more qualified than you are to make statements on climate change.

And while we're on the subject - 'Global warming' is so passe and '90's! As many of the comments here show - the issue is now climate change!

 

[Brian Emfinger]

31,000 scientists, and counting, can't be wrong!

and yet if you look throughout history that's exactly what has happened time and time again!

I also think it is important to realize that many of those 31,000 scientists don't necessarily think man enhanced/made gw is not real but that it simply can't be proven at this point. I would also venture to guess that if you polled every scientist on the planet about it then you would find most (a clear majority) had some level of belief in the main aspects of man made/enhanced gw.

edit: As for gw and IPCC report... here are a just a few of the organizations that have endorsed their report and many of the aspects of gw:

World Meteorological Organization
American Meteorological Society
Royal Meteorological Society
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
International Union for Quaternary Research
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
International Union of Geological Sciences
Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences
Geological Society of America
American Astronomical Society
American Institute of Physics
American Physical Society
American Chemical Society
World Federation of Public Health Associations
American College of Preventive Medicine
American Medical Association

 

[Damon Poole]

K. Johnson wrote -
"Ok, I can understand not having respect for Gore. Personally, I like the guy, but politics is politics and even I can accept that he has his own agenda. But the IPCC? Why do you class them together with Gore? It seems to me that many people are ignoring, or not respecting the IPCC purely because they do not like what the IPCC has to say."

Maybe it's because IPCC is a political organization, and birds of a feather flock together. Consider the following....

The following is from the IPCC Website - http://www.ipcc.ch/about/index.htm - see the mandate section. It states...."The IPCC was established to provide the decision-makers and others interested in climate change with an objective source of information about climate change. The IPCC does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters. Its role is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the latest scientific, technical and socio-economic literature produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change, its observed and projected impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they need to deal objectively with policy relevant scientific, technical and socio economic factors. They should be of high scientific and technical standards, and aim to reflect a range of views, expertise and wide geographical coverage."

Note the second sentence...."The IPCC does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters." This is red flag number one. There is no independent scientific verification, or challenge to any of the findings of the committee before the reports are issued. This means that any scientists who challenge or disagree with the "peer reviewed" data in the reports are often discounted or overridden by the bureaucrats who issue the final reports. The point here is, they only present one side of the story and refuse to allow scientific challenges of their one sided reports. To me, that goes against the IPCC's stated goal of providing..."on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the latest scientific, technical and socio-economic literature produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change."

When atmospheric scientists who disagree with the IPCC hypothesis are termed "flat Earthers" or lumped together with people who think the moon landings occurred on the Arizona desert, that, to me, shoots the IPCC's alleged "credibility" in the foot.

 

[Damon Poole]

31,000 scientists can't be wrong.

A few points here, Brian, first, your first statement can also be applied to the IPCC scientists. The IPCC doesn't conduct scientific research or verification, yet they can authoritatively say, "there is no scientific debate"? Sorry, I don't think so. That's pure ecopolitical propaganda being cunningly disguised as geoscience. I'm not buying it, and at least 31,000 others don't either.

Second point. Belief is the key word. Belief in a possible model based hypothesis is not proven scientific theory. Even NASA and NOAA use the words "Scientists believe", instead of saying that AGCC is a proven scientific theory.

Third point, as far as society endorsements, these are policy statements. Any society can do that. Of course the WMO endorsed it, IPCC was spun off from them.

and yet if you look throughout history that's exactly what has happened time and time again!

I also think it is important to realize that many of those 31,000 scientists don't necessarily think man enhanced/made gw is not real but that it simply can't be proven at this point. I would also venture to guess that if you polled every scientist on the planet about it then you would find most (a clear majority) had some level of belief in the main aspects of man made/enhanced gw.

edit: As for gw and IPCC report... here are a just a few of the organizations that have endorsed their report and many of the aspects of gw:

World Meteorological Organization
American Meteorological Society
Royal Meteorological Society
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
International Union for Quaternary Research
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
International Union of Geological Sciences
Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences
Geological Society of America
American Astronomical Society
American Institute of Physics
American Physical Society
American Chemical Society
World Federation of Public Health Associations
American College of Preventive Medicine
American Medical Association

 

[Ryan McGinnis]

Note the second sentence...."The IPCC does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters." This is red flag number one.

No, it's not really.

If I set up a service that reported on the precise chaseday predictions of Vasquez, Doswell, Marshall, Timmer, Edwards, Hollingshead, Umscheid, Samaras, and a slew of other successful chasers, and on the morning of May 20th of next year they ALL predicted that a large tornado outbreak was likely to occur in southcentral Kansas, I suspect that nobody would care that I wasn't personally adding my own chaseday prediction into the mix. "Ryan, you didn't do your own forecast, and that's HUGE RED FLAG that we can't trust your service! Even though I am not an experienced forecaster, I'm confident in ignoring all those people because you didn't do your own forecast, so how can you possibly know? I'm sticking with my Farmer's Almanac!"

Actually, my analogy is a bit off. To be perfectly analogous, the service would have to be run by an extremely experienced forecaster who just happened to not be doing any forecasting that day.

 

[Damon Poole]

Yes Ryan, it does matter, and yes it is a red flag. If I were chasing in that scenario, and my vehicle broke down in the middle of the chase, I certainly wouldn't trust the repair work to someone who hadn't worked with vehicles before. I would demand and expect an expert mechanic. Similarly, if I am to believe a report, I want it to be from an objective, experienced, and qualified climatologist who forecasts on a daily basis, not some political hack who just "perused the literature" but knows nothing about what he or she reads or speaks. Also, I want someone who is responsible and accountable enough to report NOT just the hypothesis that only supports THEIR agenda, but ALSO the limitations of that hypothesis, and ALL the alternatives to it, NOT just the headline grabbers. That's what REAL scientists do. Real scientists tell the whole story.

 

[Brian Emfinger]

If I am to believe a forecast, I want it to be from someone who does it on a daily basis, not some political hack.

Man made and/or man enhanced gw has a pretty wide spread scientific community consensus. The numbers of scientists who believe are much more than the 30,000 and include a large number of people directly involved in climate research.

The bury my head in the sand, nothing is wrong, nothing to see here group is lead and financed by political hacks with much more political and financial weight than the other side. Of course that is all due to the incredible number of businesses that stand to lose many billons of dollars if gw is proven to be right and changes are demanded by the public.

 

[K Johnson]

Similarly, if I am to believe a report, I want it to be from someone experienced and qualified forecaster who does it on a daily basis, not some political hack who just "perused the literature" but knows nothing about which he or she reads or speaks..

Did you miss the whole 'They're the best in the world, Nobel Prize winning, WMO award winning meteorologists, climatologists, and scientists' statements. They may not have written the evidence - but they did look at both sides of the argument, they are more than qualified. and they came to a conclusion. The fact you dislike that conclusion does not mean they were not qualified to reach it!

 

[Damon Poole]

There you go again with the same tired "there is no debate, there is only consensus" argument. My head is not buried in the sand. What about the chicken little, sky is falling, climate profiteers like GE and NBC/Universal who continually ram this AGCC stuff down the public's throat? NBC "Green is Universal Week"? Give me a break! I said this before and I'll say it again, natural climate change is real, completely AGCC is science fiction. Believe what you will, that's your right, just as it's my right to disagree with you.

Man made and/or man enhanced gw has a pretty wide spread scientific community consensus. The numbers of scientists who believe are much more than the 30,000 and include a large number of people directly involved in climate research.

The bury my head in the sand, nothing is wrong, nothing to see here group is lead and financed by political hacks with much more political and financial weight than the other side. Of course that is all due to the incredible number of businesses that stand to lose many billons of dollars if gw is proven to be right and changes are demanded by the public.

 

[Damon Poole]

The scientists who disagree are also among the best in the world, and come from the same ranks. That doesn't mean they aren't qualified to make their opinions known. The fact that you, or the IPCC, dislikes an opinion different than yours or their own, doesn't make the disagreeing opinions invalid, either. The IPCC may have looked at both sides, but they reported only one side, the alarmist side.

Did you miss the whole 'They're the best in the world, Nobel Prize winning, WMO award winning meteorologists, climatologists, and scientists' statements. They may not have written the evidence - but they did look at both sides of the argument, they are more than qualified. and they came to a conclusion. The fact you dislike that conclusion does not mean they were not qualified to reach it!

 

[Dave Gallaher]

I said this before and I'll say it again, natural climate change is real, completely AGCC is science fiction.

Okay, Damon: prove it. Don't quote anybody or any study--you said it, now prove it.

__________________________________________

While I don't think it's fair to label either side of this discussion 'flat earthers,' the discussion itself seems to bear considerable similarity to the flat/round earth debate, with both sides assembling testimonials from notable figures. I think that's the phase we are in now. Who knows how long it will take for either theory to establish scientific (and not social) dominance? For myself, I'd prefer some more open-mindedness from each side, and perhaps cooperation; this isn't too much to hope for if the pulpits and soapboxes are replaced with independent fieldwork and labs.

As for Al Gore, it cannot be denied that he has brought the issue to a worldwide audience, which is his main contribution. Agree or disagree with him, he has raised the level of discussion several degrees. Had this happened in an era that lacked today's partisan 'news' propaganda outlets, there may have been little or no political involvement, rather a simple postulation of an idea worth examining at considerable length and expense by scientists and interested lay persons on both sides of the issue.

 

[K Johnson]

The scientists who disagree are also among the best in the world, and come from the same ranks. That doesn't mean they aren't qualified to make their opinions known. The fact that you, or the IPCC, dislikes an opinion different than yours or their own, doesn't make the disagreeing opinions invalid, either. The IPCC may have looked at both sides, but they reported only one side, the alarmist side.

Thats just it. I have never once said that your opions are wrong, and I have never questioned the validity of your arguments. All I have done is ask that you give the scientists on 'my' side of the debate the same respect - or at least some respect, and not dismiss them as unknowledgable.

 

[Jim Saueressig]

Okay, Damon: prove it. Don't quote anybody or any study--you said it, now prove it.

It has been proven as best it can over and over by scientists studying the past. It's just as valid for the people who believe GW is bogus to use other peoples studies as it is for those who say the GW sky is falling.

The GW alarmists use little bits of info from here and there to back their claims. I can do the same for natural global environmental changes.

The poles used to be ice free, the USA was many times mostly covered in ice, the Denver area used to be a tropical rain forest at one point and covered in glaciers at another point and at yet another it was desert. Nebraska was covered in glaciers a few times and yet a desert at others..... The same goes for pretty much all parts of the world. Natural climate change is a fact no amount of GW alarm sounding can change.

Sometime this is a meteor strike induced event, others may be volcanic. Sometimes the earth just shakes things up, end of story.