Al Gore Sued by 30,000 Scientists for G****l W*****g Fraud Video: http://www.maggiesnotebook.com/2013/04/al-gore-sued-by-30000-scientists-for-global-warming-fraud-video/...

OPP Newsletter

http://www.maggiesnotebook.com/2013/04/al-gore-sued-by-30000-scientists-for-global-warming-fraud-video/

Alene49

It's about time! I have no use for Al Gore or his politics. Shame on him for foisting this fraud on the people of the world. Shame on the media for allowing no debate or or even attempting the appearance of unbiased reporting.

tombrady

click on the website and find that this article was wriiten my Maggie on April 1st..thats it..just Maggie...no last name lol

Dave Loc: Upstate New York

tombrady wrote:

click on the website and find that this article was wriiten my Maggie on April 1st..thats it..just Maggie...no last name lol

Tom, shame on you - it took me less than a minute to see Maggie sharing her entire name and history - did you seriously look at it and jumpt to a conclusion - or did you just try to dismiss it with misleading info?

tombrady

dave!!! its maggies notebook!!!!.. here a tip for you.. dont bileve a word al gore say...because i dont bielieve a word al gore says either...rather i look what the experts say (climate scientist) and 97% said g****l w*****g is real..when a poltician opens his mouth i automatic assume he or she is probaly lying and i dont care what party they from...dave im a scientist why didnt they ask me? lol

Dave Loc: Upstate New York

tombrady wrote:

dave!!! its maggies notebook!!!!.. here a tip for you.. dont bileve a word al gore say...because i dont bielieve a word al gore says either...rather i look what the experts say (climate scientist) and 97% said g****l w*****g is real..when a poltician opens his mouth i automatic assume he or she is probaly lying and i dont care what party they from...dave im a scientist why didnt they ask me? lol

Tom - again - what you said originally is not true - she shows more than just her first name.

As to the 97% of scientists, I don't know 97% of them - I am aware that many scientist say one thing and many other say something else - and I do know scientific proof is not generally a function of consensus.

As to the issue itself, whether one calls it g****l w*****g or c*****e c****e, or like in the '70's nuclear freeze, the more important question is what one proposes to do about it. There are very few "solutions" that I've seen that provides me confidence that the only result from the proposals likely is a reduced standard of living for Americans along with a further reduction to our global competitiveness. My mind stays open though - and would suggest same for you.

tombrady

i agree nice post

The Progressive Patriot

Alene49 wrote:

It's about time! I have no use for Al Gore or his politics. Shame on him for foisting this fraud on the people of the world. Shame on the media for allowing no debate or or even attempting the appearance of unbiased reporting.

Not true....Do you people fact check anything before you spout off? http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100729214718AAMg6oH

tombrady

come on man don't spoil there delusions by posting facts

Dave Loc: Upstate New York

tombrady wrote:

come on man don't spoil there delusions by posting facts

Tom - my comments to you dealt with, not the validity of the alleged lawsuit, but about the fact that the poster provided more information about herself than you suggested.

Meanwhile, before you get enthralled with tis Chardo character, you need to understand he's the left's version of the right's birthers. He actually suggested that Bush planned and executed 9/11 - nuts like that aren't worth much attention.

MannyB

Tom is a product copied from hypocrites like the Al Gores, Bill Clintons, Saul Alinskys, Barack Hussein Obamas, Harry Reids and Nancy Peloskis of this world. They preach one thing but do another totally different.

Cedarstrip Loc: Michigan

OPP Newsletter wrote:

http://www.maggiesnotebook.com/2013/04/al-gore-sued-by-30000-scientists-for-global-warming-fraud-video/

OPP, you've got to stop posting every stupid story you see. Inundation is not discussion.

As for "g****l w*****g/c*****e c****e, etc." there is a vast amount of nonsense out there even from people who should be more careful. Gore's "Day After Tomorrow" was filled with claims that have been debunked. But that doesn't prove/disprove anything by itself. Claims of more extreme storms caused by G****l W*****g are heard from many sources, even the New York Times.

However, Extreme C*****e C****e: G****l W*****g Does Not Cause Severe Weather - Confirmed By All Peer Reviewed Empirical Research
Climate doomsday scientists and chicken-little pundits claim AGW is causing more frequent severe weather events empirical research though cant establish any link between extreme c*****e c****e, severe weather trends & g****l w*****g. Source: http://www.c3headlines.com/2012/06/extreme-c*****e-c****e-global-warming-does-not-cause-severe-weather-confirmed-by-all-peer-reviewed-empirical-research.html

The fact is that it has been 16+ years since the global average temp increased. It is also a fact that there has been a slow but steady drift of scientists leaving the "science is settled" camp. Recently 10 former NASA scientists joined the list with a public statement. See http://www.therightclimatestuff.com/SummaryPrelimReport.html

Another interesting article: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/twenty-year-hiatus-in-rising-temperatures-has-climate-scientists-puzzled/story-e6frg6z6-1226609140980

Germany has been subsidizing the installation of solar power panels and recently had to stop because it was costing so much. They spent $130 billion to achieve an estimated 37 hour delay in g****l w*****g. See http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/project_syndicate/2012/02/why_germany_is_phasing_out_its_solar_power_subsidies_.html

Cedarstrip Loc: Michigan

Even though Chicken Little hasn't replied to my previous post, I thought I should add the following. On March 30th The Economist, a British publication, had an article about the failure of the "science-is-settled" climate models. This is the first time The Economist has deviated from the alarmist political line. Some climate bloggers think that the whole climate argument is about to collapse.

The article suggests the following possible reasons for the failures of the climate models. The mismatch might mean thatfor some unexplained reasonthere has been a temporary lag between more carbon dioxide and higher temperatures in 2000-10. Or it might be that the 1990s, when temperatures were rising fast, was the anomalous period. Or, as an increasing body of research is suggesting, it may be that the climate is responding to higher concentrations of carbon dioxide in ways that had not been properly understood before. This possibility, if true, could have profound significance both for climate science and for environmental and social policy. http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21574461-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-response-greenhouse-gas-emissions

oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)

TheChardo wrote:

Not true....Do you people fact check anything before you spout off? http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100729214718AAMg6oH

Of course, you saw that your source was from 3 years ago, I am sure.

Cedarstrip Loc: Michigan

Here is more on all the talk about "c*****e c****e" making the weather more severe.

Greg Carbin, the warning coordination meteorologist at NOAAs Storm Prediction Center in Norman, Oklahoma, said, There really is no scientific consensus or connection between g****l w*****g and tornadic activity....Jumping from a large-scale event like g****l w*****g to relatively small-scale events like tornadoes is a huge leap across a variety of scales.

In fact, NOAA statistics show that the last 60 years have seen a dramatic increase in the reporting of weak tornadoes, but no change in the number of severe to violent ones. http://icecap.us/index.php/go/new-and-cool