Weather Channel & 30000 scientists sue Al Gore for fraud

KUSI-TV Weatherman leads 30,000 Scientists in lawsuit charging Al Gore with fraud in Global Warming Scam. Also supporting the Scientists are 9000 PHD researchers.

Before commenting, view this:
http://www.dedroidify.com/blogimages/GlobalWarmingCoolingcycles.gif
SDGundamXsays...

What they don't mention is that most of those PhDs and scientists have absolutely no training in global climate analysis. I trust the guys at NASA who have been recording the data for years over someone with a PhD in molecular biology when it comes to analyzing the data.

Or, to put it another way, you wouldn't go to a proctologist to find out why you have a sore throat.

charliemsays...

This man, fox news, and all his "scientists" are fucking lunatics.
CO2 concentrations have only breached normal nominal ranges from nature alone within the past 20 years.

How can he say stuff like this ? Hes a fucking climatologist, youd think the guy would bloody well know better.

Australia is facing the LARGEST drought we have ever seen, and it is persisting.
That is to say, that previous lakes and river/estuary systems that went close to being dry, still had recoveries due to late rain seasons, and the ecosystems would survive...thats not happening now, the rivers and estuaries are literally dieing, and have no chance of recovery if it continues along this path.

Our farming industry has been decimated, they have been forced to sell off all their cattle / sheep, and destroy all non-essential plants, and trim back to the stalks those that arnt in flower / spawn cycles. If this was the US, and we had a similar system with FEMA, this would of been declared a national emergency and been ongoing for the past 10 years.

I honestly can't remember the last time it rained here, theres this huge water resivour that was built behind my house estate about 70 years back to prevent flooding, because this area was prone to it back then...and now, no rain.

Global warming is a crock ?

What about the berring straight being OPEN for the first time, EVER during the summer months!! ?

Or the perma-frost in the outer rim of the atlantic region (norway, iceland, greenland etc.) thawing out ?

This isnt fairytale shit made up just to scare people, it is actually fucking happening. That this guy has the audacity to pool together 30000 willing idiots with pHD's is a scorn on his curriculm vitae`, im amazed he even manages to keep the weather channel running.

Australia is having to invest in massive scale water infrastructure upgrades, billions and billions of dollars is being pumped into desalination plants and new pipelines to help prevent the death of this country. It is serious, and it has nothing to do with population, the country has had a steady population for quite some time, and increases due to immigration do nothing to dint the overall size of the populus.

Irishmansays...

Of course global warming is happening. What isn't clear is that it's caused by us.

You can prove that it's caused by us by looking at a couple of hundred years of data.

You can prove it isn't caused by us by looking at several hundred thousand years of data, and the rest of the solar system.

Now we have thousands of scientists backing up both claims, so all we are left with really is our own intuition as to the cause.

dystopianfuturetodaysays...

The circular fallback positions of the flat earth crowd:

1. Climate change doesn't exist.
2. OK, it DOES exist, but it isn't caused by humans.
3. OK, it IS caused by humans, but it would be too expensive to fix.
4. OK, it's NOT too expensive to fix, but Climate Change doesn't exist....

NetRunnersays...

>> ^Irishman:
It's corporately funded studies/PR, government funded studies/PR on BOTH sides.
Listening to the conclusions of both sides is exactly what the scientific method is.


Actually, the scientific method requires reproducible results from a methodology that withstands peer review. Who counts as a "peer" is a bit of an elitist meritocracy, but suffice to say ad hominem arguments like "Exxon-Mobile funded you" don't factor into the critique of these so-called studies. Generally, the critique of these studies comes from methodology that is either demonstrably flawed, or not explained within the study (which makes the study worth less than the paper it's printed on).

The fact that those junk studies are often funded by oil and coal companies is more of an argument for the political arena.

But since we're at the "I have experts who agree with me, and so do you, so obviously it's just a matter of personal belief" impasse that gets manufactured into this debate, let's try a bit of Pascal's wager.

Maybe Global Warming might not be real. But what if it is? What if doing nothing will cause global famine, and skyrocketing energy prices? Wouldn't you rather try to conserve, and support government incentives for clean energy, in order to prevent it?

If you're wrong, all you have is cleaner air, more efficient use of energy around your home & office, and potentially a source of renewable energy that isn't reliant on finite fossil fuel resources. There'd also be an economic expansion into "green industry" that works on things like carbon offsets, energy efficient homes (and home improvement), and alternative energy which would create jobs and bring profits to investors.

That's more or less the rhetoric John McCain used, before he became Mr. Driller (and likely will continue to use despite that).

The resistance to addressing environmental concerns seems very short sighted to me, even when it comes from those who stand to benefit directly from a continued reliance on fossil fuels.

Irishmansays...

^
The common conclusion is that the planet is warming. That's all anyone is saying with any certainty.

As to the cause, well, take your pick.

When we discovered that the amount of lead in the atmosphere was due solely to the lead being added to petroleum in cars, the entire motor industry changed overnight.

Global warming is different. It's political. The energy industry IS the government in America.

If you truly believe that global warming is man made, then get rid of your car, change your lifestyle, and be proud of yourself for doing something that actually will make a difference.

Energy efficient homes? Go out to Cambodia, or visit a village in Peru, or stay with a tribe in the Amazon. And it'd all be wiped out tomorrow with a big fucking McDonalds in the middle of it if corporate america could get away with it.

charliemsays...

>> ^Irishman:
^
Global warming is different. It's political.


It shouldn't be.

Its common sense, as bright as daylight, why the fuck arnt the politicians all getting off their collective asses pushing for a switchover to full electric cars, a full DC renewable energy grid, and getting off the dependance on foreign oil ?

What is there to lose in that, other than the trillions of currently unbought business sitting in the ground yet to be sucked up and burnt off...but then, the govt. should'nt be be-holdin to corporations and their profit/loss statements, they serve the people.

Ida thought that putting legislation into place that helps foster a new green energy industry would be good for the people. Ida thought that long-term virtually free energy / transport would be good for the people.

Corruption, its a wonderful thing.

Doc_Msays...

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
This is a corporately funded PR campaign that preys on ignorance. There is no 'debate' in science, only peer reviewed research. If this guy wants to prove his point, why is he ranting on FAUX NEWS. Get thee to the laboratory.


There most certainly is debate in science. At least HALF of science is debate. In fact, I would go so far as to say that most of science is debate. It's not the sort you see in "debate club" though of course. The purpose of peer review is to identify DATA that is legitimate, and arguments that are not ludicrous. However, HALF of every paper published (give or take) is the "discussion" section, that is, the section where the scientist(s) discuss their thoughts on the data, how it pertains to the field as a whole, if it supports the current opinion of the field on the question at hand, and what ought to be done next to help resolve the argument. Therefore, MANY papers contain data and discussions that express debate against the current hypothesis the field is operating upon. I spent upper-level graduate course on debate in science. We would choose a controversial topic, find papers that oppose each others' conclusions, compare the arguments and data and propose what ought to be done to resolve the debate. In some cases, we would study historical arguments of the same sort where in fact, someone DID resolve the debate with an elegant experiment or two and everyone was like "ahhhhhh, righto old chap, bravo."

Global warming is under such debate in science at the moment. The advice of the field in general right now is to play it safe and attempt to reduce emittions. This is decent advice in general regardless of global warming's cause, so the field feels like it is giving good advice.

On the 30000 scientists and 9000 Ph.D.s The reason why this is still significant is that scientists in general are scientists... that and the fact that many of these people ARE in fact reputable climatologists). They are trained to think in a certain way and to research questions such as this exhaustively. It may seem elitist, but scientists think of things differently than most people do and we approach debates in a different way. Scientists have a unique perspective on debated topics for which evidence and analysis is available. In other words, having a Ph.D. in biochemistry does not mean you have no understanding of ocean CO2 levels, global temperature trends, solar cycles, ice cores, and atmospheric temperature dynamics. In fact, a biochemist has the chemistry background to understand that when a liquid is warmed, it cannot dissolve as much gas (CO2 in this case) and therefore emits that which it can no longer dissolve... like when your Coke gets warm, it gets flat... your Coke was cold to keep the saturation level of CO2 in it as high as possible. This is one of the major arguments of human-made global warming skeptics. In addition to the image Irishman posted (which is excellent data to understand), when the oceans warm, they emit such a staggering amount of CO2, it makes humanity look like the mite on the back of the mite on the back of the mite.

On top of this, the VAST MAJORITY of science on this topic is Academic, i.e. independent of external influence such as gov't or corporate shenanigans. Academic research is funded to academic scientists, by panels of academic scientists. Corporations and government stooges are not part of the equation. The entire purpose of this system is to eliminate corruption. It was designed by scientists for the sake of honest science. Fraud and data manipulation is detectable by peers and is punishable by complete, permanent career destruction, revocation of all funding, and in many cases, criminal investigation and prosecution. Fudging data means, GTFO and don't expect a kind recommendation letter for McDonalds.

dethetersays...

So, i'm from Canada, right? I'm 24. When I was a kid, i'd walk to school.
Every day would be -45 degrees Celsius outside, I couldn't catch my breath, i'd get frostbite, a runny nose, and my feet would be chilled numb, and there was never a Halloween that passed without having to brave the cold and snow for the candy.

Time passes.

Now, the winter months are a shell of the former frigid might, we get what are called Chinooks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinook_winds) coming over the mountains more often now than ever before, we have days where it reaches +11 degrees C in months not generally known for it, and it stays that way for a week, before returning to like, what, -1dC, yeah sure we get cold days, it's winter, but just, you feel that each passing winter is the easiest to get through, and warmest in comparison to those that have passed before. I don't get sick as much, if ever. Colds are almost a distant thing of the past. And the last two Halloween nights have been snow free affairs, which I though would not happen, again, due simply to the time of the season.

My whole problem with Global Warming, is that it is too politicized for what it is. I dream for a day where people realize that we are owed clean and efficient technologies. We demand them! not for global warming's sake, or to fight pollution, but rather because that is progress, and trying to justify stalling out progress in the name of the status quo, is just foolish. I want to fill my car with electricity, and surf the web on the sun! Why are these things that are bad in any way? Why shouldn't everyone want to have a low cost utility bill every month, or be capable of running your meters backwards, and contributing to the grid? We spend our whole lives taking every opportunity to make ourselves more comfortable, and to be able to provide for our loved ones. Except now, with this.

What will it be, dogma, or progress? That is the choice, and that is the argument. However, history has shown that people, when confronted by unyielding ideology, fight for progress. May this be another of those times.

Cheers, Dave
From Calgary

(The place, you know, in between the arctic circle, and the middle of America, and seeing global warming unfold out my window right now.)

MycroftHomlzsays...

I once took a philosophy of religion course...

I told the professor I would like to write a paper comparing education to religion. He was remarkably unimpressed.

While there are many similarities, there are big differences. Science is founded on experiment, whereas religion is based on belief. Belief and experiment are fundamentally different.

I can believe something, and my belief is not necessarily the same as another persons. That is not true for experiment. If I do an experiment measuring the half life of carbon, and Volumptuos made the same experiment, then our results better agree. And if not we have to come up with a testable reason why they are different.

Here is the crux of my point. People have done experiments that show the globe is warming on average within the confines of their measurements. If you are going to say that these experiments are wrong, then to do so you would need to actually do an experiment that confirmed your statement. Otherwise you are just wasting my time.

And confusing the little people, like this host here.

joedirtsays...

Geeeez, it's simple. CO2 rises either because of (lagging) warming or at least indirectly tied to warming. It doesn't matter how CO2 get there (nature or manmade) or how warming happens (solar output, cloud cover, or CO2).

Fact is that there are catastrophic cycles where warming happens and eventually ice ages happen. There are some feedback mechanisms involved (both open loop and closed loop). One of those feedback mechanisms is CO2. Humans have artificially pushed the CO2 levels to near record highs.

Either it doesn't matter and the planet with deal with it (like pushing a waiter carrying a tray of plates) or the extra CO2 will cause major climate problems. It doesn't seem too crazy to err on the side of caution.

Imagine you notice fever and high body temp seem to be somewhat correlated over your lifetime of observing fevers come and go. It may not matter that the flu causes it. It may not matter that putting you in a sauna doesn't cause fevers. What does matter is that you don't want to see how hot and how long you can stay in a sauna because you really don't want to get a fever and then sit around in a sauna.

braindonutsays...

IMO, we're quickly approaching an event horizon where this won't be a debatable topic - and from everything I'm reading and hearing on the news, we are very nearly there. At a certain point, I would guess that any individual who argues the case provided in this video will be held accountable, at that point. What "being held accountable" translates into depends on severity of the situation. It's shaping up to be pretty severe.

Me? I plan on strapping people with this viewpoint to the front of my Mad Max'esque truck.

GeeSussFreeKsays...

Historically speaking, warming temperatures globally have increased habitable lands; producing more flora & Fauna. I think this positive fact is greatly overlooked in this debate of warming. Climatology is pretty interesting to me, but they still can't predict the weather for next week, or even general things like which year will be a big year for hurricanes. Trusting either sides "science" with our current weather models I think is fool hearty.

I am all for clean technology and such, I see filth as something to be eliminated. But the debate on this stuff seems to gotten all out of scope of what we seem to really know about the weather.

When climatologists can actually predict what the levels of all hurricanes will happen next year, then I will start to take what they say serious. Otherwise, I am going to treat it like the great asteroid in the sky that is on a crash course with us that we haven't seen yet, I am not going to think about it.

Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists




notify when someone comments
X

This website uses cookies.

This website uses cookies to improve user experience. By using this website you consent to all cookies in accordance with our Privacy Policy.

I agree
  
Learn More