Weather Channel founder :Sue ALGORE for fraud !!!

John Coleman, who founded the cable network in 1982, suggests suing for fraud proponents of global warming, including Al Gore, and companies that sell carbon credits.

"Is he committing financial fraud? That is the question," Coleman said.

"Since we can't get a debate, I thought perhaps if we had a legal challenge and went into a court of law, where it was our scientists and their scientists, and all the legal proceedings with the discovery and all their documents from both sides and scientific testimony from both sides, we could finally get a good solid debate on the issue," Coleman said. "I'm confident that the advocates of 'no significant effect from carbon dioxide' would win the case."

Coleman says his side of the global-warming debate is being buried in mainstream media circles.

"I think if we continue the cooling trend a couple of more years, the general public will at last begin to realize that they've been scammed on this global-warming thing...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,337710,00.html

COMMENTARY/Climate panel on the hot seat

By H. Sterling Burnett
March 14, 2008

More than 20 years ago, climate scientists began to raise alarms over the possibility global temperatures were rising due to human activities, such as deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels.

To better understand this potential threat, the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations created the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988 to provide a "comprehensive, objective, scientific, technical and socioeconomic assessment of human-caused climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation."

IPCC reports have predicted average world temperatures will increase dramatically, leading to the spread of tropical diseases, severe drought, the rapid melting of the world's glaciers and ice caps, and rising sea levels. However, several assessments of the IPCC's work have shown the techniques and methods used to derive its climate predictions are fundamentally flawed.

In a 2001 report, the IPCC published an image commonly referred to as the "hockey stick." This graph showed relatively stable temperatures from A.D. 1000 to 1900, with temperatures rising steeply from 1900 to 2000. The IPCC and public figures, such as former Vice President Al Gore, have used the hockey stick to support the conclusion that human energy use over the last 100 years has caused unprecedented rise global warming.

However, several studies cast doubt on the accuracy of the hockey stick, and in 2006 Congress requested an independent analysis of it. A panel of statisticians chaired by Edward J. Wegman, of George Mason University, found significant problems with the methods of statistical analysis used by the researchers and with the IPCC's peer review process. For example, the researchers who created the hockey stick used the wrong time scale to establish the mean temperature to compare with recorded temperatures of the last century. Because the mean temperature was low, the recent temperature rise seemed unusual and dramatic. This error was not discovered in part because statisticians were never consulted.

Furthermore, the community of specialists in ancient climates from which the peer reviewers were drawn was small and many of them had ties to the original authors — 43 paleoclimatologists had previously coauthored papers with the lead researcher who constructed the hockey stick.

These problems led Mr. Wegman's team to conclude that the idea that the planet is experiencing unprecedented global warming "cannot be supported."

The IPCC published its Fourth Assessment Report in 2007 predicting global warming will lead to widespread catastrophe if not mitigated, yet failed to provide the most basic requirement for effective climate policy: accurate temperature statistics. A number of weaknesses in the measurements include the fact temperatures aren't recorded from large areas of the Earth's surface and many weather stations once in undeveloped areas are now surrounded by buildings, parking lots and other heat-trapping structures resulting in an urban-heat-island effect....

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080314/COMMENTARY/702895001/home.html

i have to say hmmmm... lmao not for the obvious reason but in general. i forgot my old username from like 2003(ish) and password so i just made a new one!! LOL

interesting read this thread. glad that people can look at both sides of this issue and try-key word here- try to make some small changes. but yeah, it was pretty sad when al gore got nailed for not even having his farm up to code.....  he changed that pretty quick and glad that he won the nobel peace prize.

i mean if you think about some of the logical changes people can make for the better then it's not such a bad thing ya know?!?! i've done alot of research on this from getting a lil' certif. in forensic science and looking into something regarding environmental sciences or whatnot, not sure yet but...

anyhow, let me digress and say that from all this reading and researching it's fascinating to me to see what's really happening in those areas and hearing about a possibility of something under there eh? i mean we all can slam each other with facts and figures from both sides, but don't ya think that if there is a possibility that this could get a whole lot worse- which the news reports and facts show- don't ya think it might be good thing to listen to some of the truth from this inconvenient issue eh? just a humble thought tis' all.... hugs to all and glad to see this place is still around

Yeah, I'm actually a student of environmental science and I've just plain given up on even having conversations about this topic. Neither side wants to actually listen, they just enjoy poking fun at each other.

All I can say is this...the term "global warming" is a misnomer. The more accurate term would be "global climate change" and once again I reiterate that neither side of the coin has enough solid, accurate science to support theories for or against it. But, like I said back on page two, it's generally a good idea for us to clean up our acts anyhow. The mindless consumerism that runs rampant in the US alone is embarrassing. We'll slap "Keep Tahoe Blue!" bumper stickers on our SUV's and act like we're not walking oxymorons. The problem is that people are comfortable with their current habits and levels of consumption and until something exceedingly drastic happens, they're not going to change. Not even for the current "Go green!" fad.

At any rate, I give up on having these discussions. Instead, I will continue my studies and get my degrees and work behind the scenes figuring out how this wacky planet works. At least it won't ignore me or write me off as yet another nutty liberal.

~ Amanda

"Just fear me, love me, do as I say and I will be your slave..."

amen!! it is sad that people can't be consistent in their beliefs. to me  if you cannot go out to those marches or afford those parties then do the mailing list thing and web march thing(no pun intended but ahhhh...) to me people need to evolve a little bit. this backwards trend against doing anything productive makes me very sad to read. you've got people with facts in their face that you can eat tofu/soy products and it will lower(significantly) your chances of getting a heart attack and you get the same if not more protein from that choice. so.... it's so odd to me when people cannot see those facts and are quick to go "noway" and not even look into it. i mean that's the whole point for people to get fired up and look into it. i mean how lazy can every friggin american person be? almost 75% or more of americans know how to use a computer and even can look into these current event topics eh?

that is what really gets me into a tizzy when you cannot even rationally discuss these things due to feeling like hitting your head against a brick wall.  i know people joke and tease each other time to time, sometimes things come across easier in the comedic sense. i do not know for certain but people do listen when there is a sense of "lightness" involving a "heavy" topic that some people take very seriously, as do i but i add the LOL and LMAO to try to keep it from making those people feel uncomfortable. all i can say is i hope you continue to speak on these topics as i've enjoyed reading them. it can be frustrating to have all the facts from your studies and hearing and listening to the opposing viewpoints of the topic as well.... i know my brain is a weebit fried from all the forensic  reading and psychology reading hence the looking into environmental forensic side. so much for light reading on the environmental science issues too!! haha

it just seems to me that it's a no-brainer. try to use less and if you can try to eat organic meats and use eco-friendly products that ARE eco-friendly. lol * i use the lol term here due to current events regarding greenwashing companies that shouldn't be putting organic on their labels if they aren't* nasty lil' companies they are!!

that is really the whole message. to do something to help out. period. either way to change something to make the world better seems like such a no-brainer ya know? i think people will get the idea in their heads that it's not gonna hurt to save some $$ in the long run and do something, even if it's not going to effect their lifespan, do something now to help out the future. after all it's the future we're talking about right? because today is already over and  tomorrow is the future eh?

p.s. thank you for the welcome back.
 

A UN official has declared that " biofuels are a crime against humanity".

Government tinkering with the economy via biofuel subsidies is a disaster. Biofuel production I read produces more CO2 than the use of oil and biofuel production is more expensive ( 2 to 5 times)than using hyper priced oil. Millions of people may starve as 30% of corn crop goes to biofuel companies.

And algore gets an Academy Award and a Nobel Prize.

Friday, 25 April 2008

"Biofuels are a crime against humanity" is a great thing to say to get attention.
What he said after that was that it is a crime to use perfectly viable foodstuff to make fuel and if we held off for a few years we would be able to make fuel out of the waste, such as corncobs and banana leaves.

It's like someone with a rhino farm killing them for their horns so that someone can buy it thinking it will give them a boner, but leaving the meat to go to waste.

Let me say that this is the way to go in developing alternative energy, that is to say private investment, so Al is on the right track here. ( I am sure his biofuel companies are bathing in the government subsidies. )

It does make one ask however: " How much money has Al made on this whole subject ?" The book ,the movie, the (cough) carbon credits company, the college budget busting speaking tour, heading the multi billion dollar funds, donations, etc. Al is making many millions off this campaign. One has to hand it to him. You have really scored with this one Al. (even if world hunger and instability is the result)

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f78fbec2-161b-11dd-880a-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1

Well this statement is only partially true. (gosh I love being an ES student) What you state about the crops used for biofuel causing starvation is correct. It's the big concern amongst true scientists at the moment because they can't seem to get the government or other parties to understand the full effects of using our food crops for fuel production. Previously ethanol was made from the low-grade corn that the USDA wouldn't certify for human consumption. Which worked out well...it would either become feed grain for livestock or used for corn-based byproducts such as disposable silverware or biofuel. But with the sudden rush to suck up alternative fuels and move away from oil, they're starting to use the food-grade corn now, as well as other food-grade grains. I agree with the UN's statement 100% and a lot of scientists do too. None of my professors has advocated the current biofuel trend in any way.

Currently the only reason the production of biofuels is more expensive than the production of petroleum products is scale. In the grand scheme of economics, biofuel plants are inefficient producers at the moment because they haven't been able to grow their plants to a capacity that makes it more profitable nor are they producing at an efficient capacity (in other words, their fixed cost exceed their marginal revenue in the short-run, but the variable costs help a little in the meantime). Were a biofuel plant to be built the size of an oil refinery and have the influx of raw materials that oil refineries do, we'd see a large dip in production costs, which would eventually lead to a dip in biofuel cost. The raw materials themselves are cheaper...there's just not enough of them coming in to make large-scale production feasible.

Unfortunately, this upswing in biofuel interest has come at the worst time. Economy's already in the toilet, so now we're raping the food sources and driving up grain prices so we can "go green"? Not smart. There are multiple alternatives and I'm not so sure why none of them are being explored to the extent that ethanol is. Probably because the oil corporations have a hand in ethanol production, so. There you go. 

Biofuels do not generally increase CO2. They reduce CO2 emissions, as well as CO and particulate matter. SO2 emissions are eliminated because most biofuel does not contain sulphur. If a mix is being used (which happens...it's not uncommon to see biodiesel/diesel mixes...) then I can see where someone would find the ability to produce data to the contrary. NOx emissions may or may not increase, depending on the engine of the vehicle using the biofuel. The production of biofuel does not create harmful byproducts either. For example, the production of biodiesel produces ethyl ester (biodiesel) and glycerol.

IMO...the government and the media need to shut up and go away for a while. Whenever those two get involved in anything, nothing good can come of it. Al Gore still has no shame for receiving a prize that should have gone to people who actually earned it rather than someone who attempted a sea change with misrepresentation of facts and outright falsification of data. I'm not saying that the base message he's sending isn't good...that we need to adjust our consumption habits and look at better ways of treating the environment...but it's so muddied up with his methods and his habit of talking out both sides of his mouth that all he will do is taint the whole green movement and take us backwards instead of forwards.

~ Amanda

"Just fear me, love me, do as I say and I will be your slave..."

 So ah, Alie G could not be found to comment re the biofeuls/starvation report a couple weeks ago but he is right there to say the Burma (Myanmar)typhoon is caused by " global warming " (not climate change Amanda :)

And it has surfaced that some of Al's " An Inconvenient Thruth " was lifted from some  computer generated geographic glacier scene from a fantasy movie.

Al is the King of con

Yeah, You can totally see why I'm just appalled by him. When I read that he'd declared "global warming" to be the cause of a recent cyclone and he continued to crap on about how dire this coming hurricane season would be because of "global warming"...I almost jumped out the damn window. He's relentless. I'll give him that much. Persistent to the point of insanity.

It's irritating that we can't get someone like him to address the alt fuels/grain issue. It's like him and his fanboys didn't bother to read up on the entire process ahead of time and spend a few moments thinking about cause-and-effect and instead just went "OMG BIOFUELS ROCK!" and hoped it would be the magic bullet that would shut us up about oil and gas prices. So glad all these Ivy League-educated people are running our government.

~ Amanda

"Just fear me, love me, do as I say and I will be your slave..."

Amanda , I heard Obama use the term " global warming" today as Al G did, But to credit where do John McCain did indeed use the correct term " global climate change ". I'm using that two different names as a first test of- in the know on the subject-based on Amanda's more correct term. In other words I take a pol using warming with less belief than a source using climate change. One base to touch indicating more understanding of the situation.

The green theme is ubiquitous by the way- My service providers and credit card people are all pushing the green angle in there business advertising marketing model. 

We are truly pathetic about energy. No help for clean coal, no support for natural gas. Nothing. We are our own worst enemy."    Jim Cramer CNBC DEmocrat and   Environmentalist.

On the tax front , I just want to note that the US is the most punitive developed or emerging country in tax levels for business. The rest of the world has learned and implemented less corp tax, has embraced capitalism, are pro business and are all doing exceedingly well as the US losses. Most recently Russia has reduced production taxes- this done by Putin and his hand picked successor- A former Communist, KGB leader !!

European countries with a big slice government sector with use and personal income taxes are smarter about business and energy. The Netherlands is now drilling off its coast. France gets 80% of its power from nuclear sites as examples.

Amanda, I had the thought that you embody a second or third wave of environmentalists. I see it as looking critically at studies and evidence. Considered in it's views and willing to spotlight energy approaches that have problems. All without hysteria or stacking the deck. Most folks, even me, would like to see the earth be stewarded in a good way. Even as we realize there may be forces beyond our control that may weigh very heavy in the mix of Global Climate Change.

( Yikes, I hope it doesn't seem like I'm putting words in your mouth Amanda. Heaven knows you write your posts with much more thought and knowledge than I do. OK ?) 

With the Reps in the White House and until a year ago in the congress this decade we endured a costly in dollars and casualties Iraq war that was done on a shoestring under Rumsfeld with little planning for dealing with Shia, Suni and Kurds. Bush didn't veto spending bills and was not concerned with our borders.

But now with a Dem prez most likely and a big Dem advantage in congress also likely, I am concerned with new inefficient bureaucracies and ill thought out expensive legislation. As an example of what may come sooner if not later, here is an article on a frightening bill guaranteed to cause ecomic peril. IMO. 

http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20080515172437.aspx

Using the most realisticly applicable green guides the US should develope their own oil, gas, and cleaner coals. Of course simultaneously practice conservation, of course use a shotgum approach developing solar, wind at al. But to be the only nation that is not developing it's natural resources (that's the US folks) is unrealistic and a set up for economic hardship as we have never seen. IMO.

"Poverty is the worst form of pollution and only wealthy countries can afford to practice pollution and climate control. To paraphrase Heroditus: It is better to be envied than pitied.

As the rich trade in their SUVs for hybrids, the car lots overflow with them. Soon, being cheap and plentiful these are the only vehicles the poor can afford. But can they afford to put gas in them.

By not developing Americas domestic resources we reduce the amount of OPEC oil available to other countries and put upward pressure on the prices citizens of Europe and Japan pay at the pump.

If the US Government spent a trillion dollars over 8 years on domestic oil production from known reserves in the Gulf of Mexico, the Continental Shelf and coal gasification instead of War in Iraq gas would be $2 a gallon or less. America could quit sending billions to countries that sponsor terrorism. And reducing our trade imbalance keeps jobs in America. Every billion of trade deficit costs 13,000 jobs. $400 billion for oil last year: do the math."

Ben Double-who ever he is- i haven't checked his figures but endorse most of his line. Not sure the Heroditus quote is exactly germaine here. And, I propose that the government would not have to pay a trillion dollars as in a protracted war. Private enterprise will provide capital and efficiently develope energy projects. Energy needs and climate concerns must find common ground for the best short, mid., and long term good of the population.

 " June 17, 2008

Tennesee Center for Policy Research

Energy Guzzled by Al Gore’s Home in Past Year Could Power 232 U.S. Homes for a Month
Gore’s personal electricity consumption up 10%, despite “energy-efficient” home renovations

NASHVILLE - In the year since Al Gore took steps to make his home more energy-efficient, the former Vice President’s home energy use surged more than 10%, according to the Tennessee Center for Policy Research.

“A man’s commitment to his beliefs is best measured by what he does behind the closed doors of his own home,” said Drew Johnson, President of the Tennessee Center for Policy Research. “Al Gore is a hypocrite and a fraud when it comes to his commitment to the environment, judging by his home energy consumption.”

In the past year, after the green renovations, Gore’s home burned through 213,210 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity, enough to power 232 average American households for a month.

In February 2007, An Inconvenient Truth, a film based on a climate change speech developed by Gore, won an Academy Award for best documentary feature. The next day, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research uncovered that Gore’s  Nashville home alone guzzled 20 times more electricity than the average American household.

After the Tennessee Center for Policy Research exposed Gore’s massive home energy use, the former Vice President scurried to make his home more energy-efficient. Despite adding solar panels, installing a geothermal system, replacing existing light bulbs with more efficient models, and overhauling the home’s windows and ductwork, Gore now consumes 10 % more electricity than before the “green” overhaul.

Since taking steps to make his home more environmentally-friendly last June, Gore devours an average of 17,768 kWh per month –1,638 kWh more energy per month than before the renovations – at a cost of $16,533. By comparison, the average American household consumes 11,040 kWh in an entire year, according to the Energy Information Administration.

In the wake of becoming the most well-known global warming alarmist, Gore won an Oscar, a Grammy and the Nobel Peace Prize. In addition, Gore saw his personal wealth increase by an estimated $100 million thanks largely to speaking fees and investments related to global warming hysteria.

“Actions speak louder than words, and Gore’s actions prove that he views climate change not as a serious problem, but as a money-making opportunity,” Johnson said. “Gore is exploiting the public’s concern about the environment to line his pockets and enhance his profile.”

The Tennessee Center for Policy Research, a Nashville-based free market think tank and watchdog organization, obtained information about Gore’s home energy use through a public records request to the Nashville Electric Service. "

Saw this in the Wall Street Journal the other day and it's stayed with me since. That's why I'm sharing it with you all. A deep breath of fresh air and a truckload of perspective follow:

GLOBAL VIEW By BRET STEPHENS

Global Warming as Mass Neurosis
July 1, 2008; Page A15

Last week marked the 20th anniversary of the mass hysteria phenomenon known as global warming. Much of the science has since been discredited. Now it's time for political scientists, theologians and psychiatrists to weigh in.

What, discredited? Thousands of scientists insist otherwise, none more noisily than NASA's Jim Hansen, who first banged the gong with his June 23, 1988, congressional testimony (delivered with all the modesty of "99% confidence").

AP

The New True Believers

But mother nature has opinions of her own. NASA now begrudgingly confirms that the hottest year on record in the continental 48 was not 1998, as previously believed, but 1934, and that six of the 10 hottest years since 1880 antedate 1954. Data from 3,000 scientific robots in the world's oceans show there has been slight cooling in the past five years, never mind that "80% to 90% of global warming involves heating up ocean waters," according to a report by NPR's Richard Harris.

The Arctic ice cap may be thinning, but the extent of Antarctic sea ice has been expanding for years. At least as of February, last winter was the Northern Hemisphere's coldest in decades. In May, German climate modelers reported in the journal Nature that global warming is due for a decade-long vacation. But be not not-afraid, added the modelers: The inexorable march to apocalypse resumes in 2020.

This last item is, of course, a forecast, not an empirical observation. But it raises a useful question: If even slight global cooling remains evidence of global warming, what isn't evidence of global warming? What we have here is a nonfalsifiable hypothesis, logically indistinguishable from claims for the existence of God. This doesn't mean God doesn't exist, or that global warming isn't happening. It does mean it isn't science.

So let's stop fussing about the interpretation of ice core samples from the South Pole and temperature readings in the troposphere. The real place where discussions of global warming belong is in the realm of belief, and particularly the motives for belief. I see three mutually compatible explanations.

The first is as a vehicle of ideological convenience. Socialism may have failed as an economic theory, but global warming alarmism, with its dire warnings about the consequences of industry and consumerism, is equally a rebuke to capitalism. Take just about any other discredited leftist nostrum of yore – population control, higher taxes, a vast new regulatory regime, global economic redistribution, an enhanced role for the United Nations – and global warming provides a justification. One wonders what the left would make of a scientific "consensus" warning that some looming environmental crisis could only be averted if every college-educated woman bore six children: Thumbs to "patriarchal" science; curtains to the species.

A second explanation is theological. Surely it is no accident that the principal catastrophe predicted by global warming alarmists is diluvian in nature. Surely it is not a coincidence that modern-day environmentalists are awfully biblical in their critique of the depredations of modern society: "And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart." That's Genesis, but it sounds like Jim Hansen.

And surely it is in keeping with this essentially religious outlook that the "solutions" chiefly offered to global warming involve radical changes to personal behavior, all of them with an ascetic, virtue-centric bent: drive less, buy less, walk lightly upon the earth and so on. A light carbon footprint has become the 21st-century equivalent of sexual abstinence.

Finally, there is a psychological explanation. Listen carefully to the global warming alarmists, and the main theme that emerges is that what the developed world needs is a large dose of penance. What's remarkable is the extent to which penance sells among a mostly secular audience. What is there to be penitent about?

As it turns out, a lot, at least if you're inclined to believe that our successes are undeserved and that prosperity is morally suspect. In this view, global warming is nature's great comeuppance, affirming as nothing else our guilty conscience for our worldly success.

In "The Varieties of Religious Experience," William James distinguishes between healthy, life-affirming religion and the monastically inclined, "morbid-minded" religion of the sick-souled. Global warming is sick-souled religion.

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

Wow- kind of surprised at all the climate change disbelievers here.  Is all TPG kind of right-leaning, or just this forum?  Most of the links I've seen above are Washington Times or  DontMessWithCapitalismKeepTheOilFlowing.org

 I'll agree on biofuels, but think the debate needs to be reframed.  I'd love to see biofuels made out of native perennial prairie- could support wildlife, and if harvested in a reasonable way would need very little replanting.  Ecosystem services- yeah.  People are working on this, but obviously the corn lobby is powerful.

I do find it funny to see the global warming is a left wing conspiracy theory.  You all realize that members of the national academy of sciences all have retirement plans with mutual funds tied to the same markets that  everyone else is worried about?

We can't go zero-oil immediately or even for the forseable future, and domestic energy is good.  But handing the keys to the kingdom to the energy industry now would be a horrible idea and result in serious damage.  So far: Bush has gutted oversight by the gov't departments in charge of handing out and monitoring energy leases, and just recently made an executive order to forbid other agencies (like EPA or USFWS) from assessing impacts in  other government agencies.  This really means no regulations on the energy companies, and they have some pretty sweet [/sarcasm] kinds of tobacco science going on (btw- I have colleagues with first-hand knowledge of CBM/Nat Gas in the Mont/Wyo/Colo region).

I know, I am the evil skeptic of The Church of Global Warming ( more correct term should be Climate Change ). And here is yet another piece challenging the concept :

Jordan .

Man, it's probably in the 50s here in SoCal this morning too!  Brrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!!  I wore a sweatshirt yesterday!  (while picking out this year's Christmas tree -- a Grand Fir)

Susan

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin