30,000 Scientists to Sue Al Gore for Fraud

[David Wolfson]

I don't think there's anything like the rapidity of change shown in the historical record save natural cataclysms like meteorite strikes and caldera eruptions and such. Stuff appears to be happening very quickly quite consistent with multiple chains of scientific analysis suggesting that AGCC is primarily responsible.

Hopefully it isn't, but those "30,000 scientists" haven't so far come up with convincing alternatives backed by good science IMHO.

 

[Dave Gallaher]

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.

I think it's one thing to state that a one supports a theory, and another to claim that an opposing view is "science fiction." Such a bold claim should merit a personal demonstration of the claimant's irrefutible evidence.

Scientists studying the past have come up with both conclusions.

While each side has demonstrated its position, neither has, in my unscientific opinion, proved anything. Let's have more research, and less polarization.

 

[Damon Poole]

I agree with that you there needs to be more research and less polarization. As I was trying to say in an earlier post, I also want to hear from 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. This is where alarmists and the IPCC have dropped the ball. When scientists who disagree have tried to speak out, they are ignored, misrepresented, or ostercised by alarmists. The mass media and the politicians have been willing accomplices in this.

My disbelief is in the Global Warming hype. 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 natural forcings involved in Climate Change, other than just Human produced Greenhouse gasses. This is why I don't believe that Human Greenhouse gasses are totally responsible for recent global climate change. Computer models are not concrete proof. Anyone who forecasts knows that computer models are helpful, but they are not the final authority, especially for a century or more in advance. Believe what you will, that's your right, just as it's my right to agree or disagree with you.

I think it's one thing to state that a one supports a theory, and another to claim that an opposing view is "science fiction." Such a bold claim should merit a personal demonstration of the claimant's irrefutible evidence.

Scientists studying the past have come up with both conclusions.

While each side has demonstrated its position, neither has, in my unscientific opinion, proved anything. Let's have more research, and less polarization.

 

[Dave Gallaher]

Thanks, Damon--I can relate to your position better here than in the previous post.

I'm one of the ~8% in the poll who hasn't formed an opinion yet. I have leaned both ways, but have not found sufficient proof to adopt either point of view. Because of this, the discussion here is of value to me.

 

[Damon Poole]

Point taken, I also have respect for the scientists on 'your' side of the debate. It's more intense disagreement than it is disrespect. My main problem is that the pro AGCC scientists get the bulk of the respect in the public eye at the expense of the dissenting view. Maybe, if the IPCC had given equal attention to the dissenting scientists, and the other possible causes, instead of concentrating solely on the so-called "consensus", I might not have as big a disagreement with them as I do.

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.