digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

TWC founder and global warming skeptics suing Al Gore

businessandmedia.org — Weather Channel founder Coleman told an audience at the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change on March 3 in New York that he is highly critical of global warming alarmism.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Euangelion, on 03/04/2008, -35/+75I thought the debate was over?
    • CaptainAmerica1, on 03/04/2008, -21/+68Well, according to Al Gore, it is. ;-)
    • Isidore, on 03/04/2008, -63/+34The vast majority of climate scientists believe that humans are now a major cause of climate change.

      The issue is a scientific one, based on observations. As individuals we can each study the evidence to post-doctoral level. Or, if we do not have the talent or time the next best thing is to rely on the consensus of those who have studied the matter in depth. If you were ill would you trust: a blogger or someone who studied medicine for many years? Doctors and scientists are not infallible. If one maverick doctor disagrees with the consensus would trust your life to them or the majority opinion?

      Who are the real experts? Is there enough evidence for them to come to a valid consensus conclusion? National Science Academies should be able to identify the real experts and whether there is a consensus.

      The National Scientific Academies of the following countries issued this statement in support of the IPCC

      “The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science. We recognise IPCC as the world’s most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes, and we endorse its method of achieving this consensus. Despite increasing consensus on the science underpinning predictions of global climate change, doubts have been expressed recently about the need to mitigate the risks posed by global climate change. We do not consider such doubts justified.”

      National Academy of Sciences (US),
      Royal Society (United Kingdom),
      Chinese Academy of Sciences,
      Science Council of Japan,
      Russian Academy of Sciences,
      Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Brazil),
      Royal Society of Canada,
      Académie des Sciences (France),
      Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany),
      Indian National Science Academy,
      Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy),
      Australian Academy of Sciences,
      Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts,
      Caribbean Academy of Sciences,
      Indonesian Academy of Sciences,
      Royal Irish Academy,
      Academy of Sciences Malaysia,
      Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand,
      Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences.

      Source: http://www.royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id= ... Royal Society 2001
      http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/displaypagedoc.asp?id=20 ... Royal Society 2005
      http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Statements_on ... For the comments of other scientific bodies.
      • michael4lsu, on 03/04/2008, -25/+38That's funny. Most of the "Royal" organizations you listed get their paychecks from the globalist elite behind the global warming fraud in the first place. Try looking at independent study groups that aren't subsidied, bought, and paid for by the governments to promote their agenda.
        • Rich711, on 03/04/2008, -8/+22But how would one POSSIBLY do that? There's no Wikpedia page for that.
        • zeitgueist, on 03/04/2008, -3/+9Care to list some?
        • bphicke, on 03/04/2008, -7/+10@zeitgueist, you should check this out http://digg.com/environment/Reason_Magazine_Global ...
          good information without all the propaganda.
        • hipnerd, on 03/04/2008, -11/+15Wow, I haven't gotten to read a good tin-foil hat, anti-science wankfest in a while. Thanks fellas. Digg down the science, Digg up the globalist conspiracies.

          I'm gonna go make some popcorn.
          • pintomp3, on 03/04/2008, -12/+9those evil scientists. first they tried to get everyone to think the world is round. then they started their evolution nonsense. now it's global warming. when will it ever end?
        • UberNick, on 03/04/2008, -12/+211) Since when has the governments' agendas been to promote global warming? I live in the US and am constantly hearing news stories of its suppression by the current administration.

          2) This "globalist elite" group that supposedly funds and undermines all credibility of those who have devoted their lives to observation and truth... who are they? why the big conspiracy? I always thought the "global elitist corporations" gain from unrestricted plunder of the environment?

          3) Your post reminded me of this coffee cup quote:
          "So-called “global warming” is just a secret ploy by wacko tree-huggers to make America energy independent, clean our air and water, improve the fuel efficiency of our vehicles, kick-start 21st-century industries, and make our cities safer and more livable. Don’t let them get away with it!"
        • carrtoonist, on 03/04/2008, -6/+5Only if governments only listen to lobby groups that aren't subsidized by oil corporations.

          http://www.democracynow.org/2005/4/22/report_exxon ...
          http://www.exxposeexxon.com/
          etc...
      • Railer, on 03/04/2008, -15/+17I don't really care what all these "groups" think All you need to know is AGW crowd have lost in Court once already. They will lose again, and when it happens in a US court I think we will finally see the end of AGW.
        • gzuckier, on 03/04/2008, -11/+9yes, perhaps there will be an injunction against the atmosphere to make it behave itself politely.
          • norman619, on 03/04/2008, -5/+9Maybe you should educate yourself instead of letting the Chruch of Human cuased Global Warming do your thinking.
        • BigManOnCampus, on 03/04/2008, -1/+5They've lost in court once already? Are you talking about in Britain with AIT?
        • zeitgueist, on 03/04/2008, -2/+7Oh really? Can I get a case citation?
        • Railer, on 03/05/2008, -1/+2Yes the British case:
          http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law ...
          • zeitgueist, on 03/05/2008, -0/+1FTA:
            "Despite finding nine significant errors the judge said many of the claims made by the film were fully backed up by the weight of science. He identified “four main scientific hypotheses, each of which is very well supported by research published in respected, peer-reviewed journals and accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC”. "

            Try again. Also, that was about a movie, not the science.
      • gzuckier, on 03/04/2008, -12/+10funny how the geniuses all come out to reply to your comment. hey, this is America, everybody's opinion is of equal weight on every topic, it's our right. nobody should have to try and read the scientific stuff, that makes their heads hurt.
        • wrongonce, on 03/04/2008, -5/+11"...Or, if we do not have the talent or time the next best thing is to rely on the consensus of those... -isidore"
          Sounds like the post-in-question is advocating the vacuous existence you clearly abhor. I would kindly suggest that the opinions of those that advocate "just let the consensus I have heard so much about do all the thinking for you" are the ones not looking at the science.
          BTW, this is Digg, not America.
          • mclev, on 03/04/2008, -4/+3"And he wore around him quotations, as a beggar would a stolen silk robe".
          • wrongonce, on 03/05/2008, -1/+1"Obla-Dee, Obla-Da, Life Goes On, La,
            la, la, la la Life Goes On"
      • noahhoward, on 03/04/2008, -4/+11Yet one of the IPCC scientists tell us the report was edited by the panel and that there is not a consensus.
      • jm4847, on 03/04/2008, -2/+8"As individuals we can each study the evidence to post-doctoral level. Or, if we do not have the talent or time the next best thing is to rely on the consensus of those who have studied the matter in depth."
        This is a good sheep, he repeats everything we tell him.
        The science behind this is politically motivated, that's more that enough for me to not blindly trust these studies. I'm not saying it's not real, I'm saying I'm a skeptic.
    • Zlorp, on 03/04/2008, -18/+22and then temperatures dropped enough in the last year to cancel out all of the warming over the last century. All thanks to the suns solar cycles, which global warming fearmongers have previously tried to make us believe didnt play that big of a role (remember that one video that touched on the very topic of solar cycles playing the biggest role? remember how everyone angrily tore into it? doesnt seem so ridiculous now huh?)
      • dash1185, on 03/04/2008, -13/+10http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v443/n7108/ab ... . Solar luminosity cycles are bogus.
        • slvrbullet87, on 03/04/2008, -3/+14guess you havent ever heard of sun spots.
          • dash1185, on 03/04/2008, -7/+3Read my link before posting your most immediate thoughts :
            "Variations in the Sun's total energy output (luminosity) are caused by changing dark (sunspot) and bright structures on the solar disk during the 11-year sunspot cycle. The variations measured from spacecraft since 1978 are too small to have contributed appreciably to accelerated global warming over the past 30 years. In this Review, we show that detailed analysis of these small output variations has greatly advanced our understanding of solar luminosity change, and this new understanding indicates that brightening of the Sun is unlikely to have had a significant influence on global warming since the seventeenth century. Additional climate forcing by changes in the Sun's output of ultraviolet light, and of magnetized plasmas, cannot be ruled out. The suggested mechanisms are, however, too complex to evaluate meaningfully at present."
          • BigManOnCampus, on 03/04/2008, -0/+9For the last time, noone is talking about luminosity.

            Perhaps you don't know this Dash, but when the Sun goes through the part of its cycle where sunspots increase, so does coronal mass ejection and solar wind. The solar wind gets DENSER. This solar wind goes in all directions. this solar wind blocks gamma radiation that comes from deep space.

            Gamma radiation, as explained in both a physics theoretical paper, and in actual experiments, is the spark that leads to tropospheric cloud formation. with less gamma radiation comes less cloud formation. With less cloud formation comes higher temperatures. So, in effect, when sunspots go away, the earth cools. when sunspots are active (counterintuitively) the earth has fewer clouds and warms.

            THAT's the basic sun-cycle theory.
          • dash1185, on 03/05/2008, -3/+1All right. As explained in the abstract, they are not talking about magnetized plasmas (i.e. solar winds) because it is "too complex to evaluate at present". So basically the hypothesis is very difficult to prove right now.
            About your explanation... "With less cloud formation comes higher temperatures" Wait wait wait... Is this true ? Example : in Sahara, there are no clouds and so the heat is NOT retained. Thus it's freezing during the night. Maybe you didn't explain it correctly, so I will retain the sun-cycle theory as a possible explanation, but more proof is necessary.
        • Zlorp, on 03/04/2008, -9/+16was the rapid global temperature drop this past year bogus too?
          • dash1185, on 03/04/2008, -12/+2ok, I gave you sources show me yours. Then I will answer you
          • Zlorp, on 03/04/2008, -7/+11here you go

            http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Repo ...

            global temperature average has dropped .75C in the last YEAR. anyway you look at it, you global warming fear mongers dont really understand whats going on.
          • dash1185, on 03/04/2008, -7/+4All right. The real source is this one (I followed the link on your pseudo-scientific blog) : http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/19/ja ... This is how science looks like : a panel of diversified recordings. What do you see on these graphs ? A lot of ***** noise for sure, but also a global trend (look closer at the data from NASA. It's a fact that we do not fully understand what is going on because there are lots of stochastic factors. We cannot accurately predict. However you must be pretty stupid to conclude from 1 (!) year recordings that global warming is ruled out. At least wait a few years to see if there really is a trend, or if it's just what it is : an anomaly. All I can see, from the NASA records is that the temperature in January 2000 is the same as in january 2008.

            PS : from the original site : "I wish to state for the record, that this statement is not mine: “–a value large enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years”" Anthony Watts, the guy who compiled the results from your source.
          • joebeastie, on 03/04/2008, -7/+6That dailytech article is bogus and has been debunked. You are the fourth person that I have seen so far using it as fact. Next meeting you luddites have could you please ask each other to stop spreading lousy science?
            http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2008/02/27/here ...
          • Zlorp, on 03/04/2008, -5/+11oh. IM sorry, the average only went down .64C.

            no ones ruling out global warming, what we're doing is pointing out that what we think we know about our climate is likely about 1/10th of whats going on, and for you morons to want to cruficify anyone who questions global warming like they are the dumbest people alive are foolish, that kind of attitude has no place in science.

            your claims of impending doom were suddenly set back 10 years (according to just the nasa graph which showed the smallest amount of change of the 4, which would explain why it you only mentioned that one graph)

            theres definitely something at work here thats a lot more powerful than CO2 levels.

          • Zlorp, on 03/04/2008, -2/+7hey joe, notice no ones arguing about solar cycles anymore, you responded to a post about the cooling thats taken place in the last year. care to "debunk" that one for us? (maybe with a link that works this time)
          • dash1185, on 03/04/2008, -7/+2First of all, these are not my claims. I'm not a fearmonger, all I'm saying is that you must be aware that man-made globa warming is probably a reality and that it's coming at us very fast (look closely, I used the word "probably", which leaves discussion open). You don't have to be an alarmist to begin following simple anti-waste rules (common sense, like turning off the lights when you go away, do not live in 35°C homes and so on..). I'm pretty much aware that we do not understand the whole picture. However, as a scientist, I look at the publications, and there is much more data supporting man-made global warming than refuting it. This does not mean it's the truth, but please don't be anti-rational to the point of hiding your head into the sand whenever you hear about global warming. Basic method in science : there is a hypothesis : "global warming is a reality and we may play a role in it". There is data to support this. Now if you show me enough data to support YOUR hypothesis, then it's ok with me. But it's important for me that your data is peer-reviewed and does not come from some random blogger.
            "theres definitely something at work here thats a lot more powerful than CO2 levels." How do you DEFINITELY know that it is the case ? Are you making the same mistake that you reproach global warming supporters to do ?
            And to close this contribution : no reasonable man claims of "impending doom". I mean we know global warming is happening (take it in a scientific sense, that is until you prove me it's not; and do not show me data for 1 year from a blog, show me a peer reviewed publication). But we do not know 100% how it is happening. We do not know exactly what the results could be. Still, since it's a concern for all mankind, why not try to do something, just in case it turns out the way it has been predicted ?
          • Zlorp, on 03/04/2008, -2/+4ok the only thing debunked about that article was his statement about "erasing 100 years of warming" what wasnt debunked is the huge temperature drop that took place. call it an anomaly if you will, but how do we know that global warming itself isnt an anomaly?

            and im not even against global warming, its probably the case, but i get ***** and giggles when stuff like this comes up that you guys cant even come close to explaining after being so confident about your previous claims to the point of being angry.

            as for everyone reducing their consumption/waste/etc. im all for that as well, BUT i dont think scaring people when the facts obviously arent all in is the way to do it.

            the same argument is used to justify our being in iraq. "fighting them over there instead of over here, just in case"

            now im not saying that the climate change situation is anywhere near as ridiculous as iraq, but my point is that in both instances fear has been used to scare people into doing things when the facts aren't all in yet.
          • dash1185, on 03/05/2008, -4/+2I see your point. The thing is, I'm not sure global warming is really used to scare people into doing things. What kind of things ?
            Most people I discuss with buy into the conspiracy thing about the United Nations stealing US sovereignity, or the carbon tax which is made to impoverish us people or other garbage arguments like that. How do you know? Like you said, wait for the facts before doing the same thing and scaring people with the fact that "scientists are liberal-biased liars that only want to scare us into paying 20 bucks a year as a carbon tax so that they can fill their pockets".
            Now I'm really curious to see what are these things "they" want to force us to do. I'm honestly asking the question without mean intentions, it's just I really want to know what the people from the other side of the fence are afraid of.
          • Zlorp, on 03/05/2008, -1/+3Its not that we (they) are afraid of anything, its just that fear is being used to suggest people change their ways, im not denying that perhaps the motive is a good one, but it goes both ways and sometimes the motives arent good afterall. in this case its an ideological thing rather than anything to do with something like financial gain, and while i think that the science community has their heart in the right place on this one, they're using tactics that are used to manipulate people before the results are all in.

            now on the scientific front its become "support global warming or you're a joke". its gone past the point of trying to fully explain changes in the climate to focusing on telling everyone why a specific component is driving all of it, when the first question was never fully answered.


            I can see why most would think it to be in our best interest to try and get people to lower their footprint, but to jump the gun when all the facts arent known and try to scare everyone into change isnt the best way, we're better off taking a little more time to fully understand it. Due to the quickness that global warming has been driven into the minds of the people (mostly since gores movie) things have happened such as this switch over to ethanol as a fuel, before they even fully thought about what they were doing. now we have an "alternative" fuel thats pitched as being enviro-friendly when in reality all of the process involved to create the ethonal and bio fuels ends up being just as bad or worse. and whats even worse than that is that farmers now realize they can make money on this stuff, so now we end up with a fuel that instead of being better for the environment is actually WORSE overall, AND theres no way in hell farmers are going to back out of the money they are making from it.

            these kinds of things happen when there is a rush to adapt to something no one even knows the full extent of.

            i just want the truth, but sadly the quest for truth gets tossed to the side once there becomes an agenda.

          • dash1185, on 03/05/2008, -2/+3The fact is that Global warming as we understand it is a relatively fast process. If you want to do something that would havean effect, you've gotta do it now. As always in science, human emissions is probably not the only factor driving climate change (lots of natural processes, CO2 reservoirs are feedbeck sources; heck even the sun can have its effect for what I know) , but you cannot dismiss it entirely. The problem we're facing is this : the consequences of global warming on earth and its ecosystems are mostly irreversible. Can we take the decision NOT to act (because we do not have all the facts) and let these irreversible processes take place, or must we do ANYTHING to limit our effect on greenhouse gases emissions (because we have some facts taht indicate that this is the climate change factor we're responsible for). I guess the solution lies somewhere in between.
          • dggeek, on 03/05/2008, -4/+4http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/

            "The year 2007 tied for second warmest in the period of instrumental data, behind the record warmth of 2005"
          • Zlorp, on 03/05/2008, -2/+5why is it that temps from 3 other places contradict that claim?
          • wrongonce, on 03/05/2008, -1/+3Because GISS is not the best source of data.
        • BigManOnCampus, on 03/04/2008, -3/+5Except, noone is talking about solar "luminosity" cycles.

          They are talking about solar wind cycles.
    • ausfahrt, on 03/04/2008, -0/+9Who won ... i missed something.
    • lucutus, on 03/04/2008, -3/+19When debate ends science fails
      • DavidYeah, on 03/04/2008, -15/+10Sure, the debate should go on, but irresponsible scientists who are going public with their beliefs before they have hard science to back up thier claims is insane. If there was just one study that showed that global warming science was bunk, then it would be a scientific revolution, not something to be oppressed and muffled because it didn't agree with the established consensus.
        Global warming science is established at about 95% percent certainty. Don't you think we should start believing it? Or do you think we should wait until 99%? 99.99%? If you're waiting for 100%, it's not going to happen, because science simply is never that decisive-- there is always room for a study to come along and disprove the entire body of work.
        We're still waiting for that day with global warming. The same goes with evolution.
        • CaptainAmerica1, on 03/05/2008, -2/+5"...Sure, the debate should go on"

          Glad you feel that way. Most frothing-at-the-mouth, wide-eyed, fanatic, climate loonies label people who question their side of the story "fascists."
        • angryredplanet, on 03/05/2008, -5/+2"Most frothing-at-the-mouth, wide-eyed, fanatic, climate loonies label people who question their side of the story "fascists." "

          At least the "frothing-at-the-mouth, wide-eyed, fanatic, climate loonies" have the scientific majority to back them. Most skeptics label us as stupid, but I don't know which is worse, stupid or ignorant.

          It is commonly cited that climate scientists claim they're at least 90% certain that increases in global average surface temperature over the last 50 years have a strong anthropogenic component. The timing is about right in the scheme of our rapidly industrialising world, the observed evidence is there, the science is strongly backing it, yet the tenacious skeptics dig their heels in, like the world's too big for us to damage. The world (especially our atmosphere) isn't as large and indestructible as most skeptics clearly think it is. Travel overseas and see what we've done and continue to do to this planet on a global scale. I recommend China or India. It will change you, I guarantee it.
        • digg4smarts, on 04/27/2008, -0/+0you are a total idiot. Any REAL scientist never goes on "90% certain". do some research son.
    • jm4847, on 03/04/2008, -2/+3What a scientific opinion you have there, son.
    • GeorgeClayton, on 03/04/2008, -4/+18There are those on the side of Global warming who pretend the debate is over, but it's far from over

      It's turned into a political issue, rather than a scientific issue, which is sad. I'm all for reasonable preservation of the environment myself, but the idea that Global Warming is what alarmists make it out to be is ridiculous IMO. Leave this issue to the scientists.
      • neoporcupine, on 03/05/2008, -3/+4You should equally denigrate the ridiculous attitude of deniers. Using derogatory speech about one side reveals a bias. You also have a contradictory message, that you're sad about the issue being non-scientific, but the next statement is your non-scientific opinion.
      • angryredplanet, on 03/05/2008, -3/+5Why is it ridiculous? How can you say something is "alarmist" when you can't prove conclusively that that alarmist case will not come to be? You say "leave it to the scientists" but what if they start saying alarmist things that contravene your already established beliefs, will you believe them then?
    • vikingcoder, on 03/04/2008, -6/+6How would you react to creationists finding somebody to sue over evolution?

      Science is always open for debate. Please provide references to research. Repeating the same tired canards, myths & ad hominem attacks endlessly is not debate.

      A public debate is pointless as public debates are only relevant for matter of opinion. The opinions of the populace has no bearing on current scientific understanding.
      • bphicke, on 03/05/2008, -1/+3Public opinion has allot to do with scientific understanding when politicians use it to ostracize dissenting scientists that don't fall in line.
  • strafefire, on 03/04/2008, -16/+119Wow. A Lawsuit? That's actually pretty brilliant!

    Now it forces both sides of the global warming debate to TRUTHFULLY, under the rule of law to present their cases...

    A case like this would make history, of course.
    • bullcutter, on 03/04/2008, -20/+42Honestly, court rooms & lieyers oft have very little to do with actually getting to the "truth" of any matter, but since Al Gore would be one of the sue-ees this is one lawsuit I'm all for.
      • BigManOnCampus, on 03/04/2008, -5/+7To Bullcutter you listen, for he is correct here. This lawsuit will do nothing close to getting to the "truth". The Law can be very very far from truth. Just look at how Microsoft was dead, exposed, and facing imminent defeat at the hands of the justice department and then somehow "pardoned".
      • neognostic, on 03/04/2008, -4/+14O.J. Simpson
    • bmcelrath, on 03/04/2008, -7/+13It is brilliant. I hope someone does it.
    • Railer, on 03/04/2008, -3/+11For those of you who have never seen "Inherit the Wind", please do so. In the end the teacher who dared teach against doctrine lost, but the truth was out. It's really is a life changing movie, get the B&W Spencer Tracy Version, it helps get your mind in the proper time frame. Debate needs an outlet and if we cannot debate openly in public, it will be forced into the courts.

      "Suppose God whispered into a Bertram Cate's ear that an un-Brady thought could still be holy? Must men go to jail because they find themselves at odds with a self-appointed prophet? "

      http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0053946/
      • jstohler, on 03/04/2008, -10/+3It's also a movie. This is reality we're talking about.
        • JavertHolmes, on 03/04/2008, -0/+12Here's what it was based on:

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_Trial

          The Scopes trial was real.
        • Vhaeos, on 03/04/2008, -1/+2Yeah, it even says so on the tagline in the link the poster gave to IMDB.
          "Based on a real-life case in 1925, two great lawyers argue the case for and against a science teacher accused of the crime of teaching evolution."
      • pintomp3, on 03/04/2008, -7/+3exactly, you basically have scientists who's findings threaten the establishment. then it was the church, now it is big oil and the coal industry. they will fight the truth, but science will win in the end.
        • Railer, on 03/04/2008, -1/+6Actually the point of the movie is should a man be allowed to speak his mind regardless of the prevailing attitudes and religious doctrine at the time. The actual point is the quote above "Must men go to jail because they find themselves at odds with a self-appointed prophet? "

          Have you seen the movie?

          Big Oil is equal to the devil in 1925 doctrine, stating Big OIl is causing all the problems is what I like to call a scape goat.

          Lets rephrase your sentence:
          "exactly, you basically have Atheists who's findings threaten the Church. Now it is Devil and his minions. they will fight the truth, but Church will win in the end."

          See the problem with your theory is Science WANTS debate, it always wants debate, those who state "the science is over" and refuse all debates are NOT doing Science, it's then called doctrine.
        • notadiggtard, on 03/05/2008, -0/+6As previously stated,MAN CAUSED Global Warming is a religion.Scientists who don't toe the line are destroyed professionally(excommunicated),others who dare question the Church are denounced as"deniers".Thus,through choice of words equating them with Holocaust deniers and raising their own position to the righteous level and importance of that tragedy.
      • fokov, on 03/04/2008, -1/+2That's a pretty good quote.
    • glasnostic, on 03/04/2008, -4/+11yeah because scopes sure did end the whole religion debate.

      /sarcasm
      • culbeda, on 03/04/2008, -2/+2Yeah, but this one is based on science and... oh.. I see your point.
      • cornswalled, on 03/05/2008, -1/+2Fortunately religion has survived and is making a come back against Darwin's humanist fantasy.
    • KSUdesigner, on 03/04/2008, -4/+24The submitter skewed the headline a bit. There is no actual lawsuit at the moment, not according to this article anyway.

      "TWC founder and global warming skeptic advocates suing Al Gore to expose 'the fraud of global warming.' "

      Big difference between suing someone and advocating suing someone.
    • whereiseljefe, on 03/04/2008, -1/+6Truth in a lawsuit?
    • ausfahrt, on 03/04/2008, -1/+3Well they'll be there for a while. I don't think the court is a place to prove science. Answers to questions like this one are illusive ones and we probably wont know the truth in our lifetime if ever. Remember when the earth was the center of the solar system, and flat?
      • JDKruger4, on 03/04/2008, -3/+2I agree with most of what you said there except the time frame for knowing global warming is happening. We are seeing many of the effects now, lowered oceanic pH due to atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations, reduced coral growth, coral bleaching, reduced daily average temperature range (meaning that the 'insulation' provided by the atmosphere is 'thicker'). We will be seeing most corals world wide dead and dominated by algae between 2030-2050.... We will definately see the effects in our lifetime, but there will always be skeptics who have not educated themselves and simply deny something because they don't like what it says.

        If you're interested a couple great resources"
        www.ipcc.ch (THE auhority on global climate change)
        http://realclimate.org/ (A blog with comments by actual SCIENTISTS! WOAH!)
    • vertinox, on 03/04/2008, -4/+6So if the court of law decides global warming does not exist, will they hold the ice caps in contempt of court for melting.
      • yaddayaddayoda, on 03/04/2008, -3/+2You mean the ice caps that are building up?
      • JDKruger4, on 03/04/2008, -0/+2The ice caps that are melting.... check your facts.... yes there is some build up in the mainland of Greenland, but the fringe melting is exacerbated by this buildup. There is a net loss of frozen water mass in every region of the world

      • tech42er, on 03/05/2008, -1/+3That's not the point. They want to sue the carbon credit corporations for false advertising. The CC companies are (unsurprisingly) implying that buying carbon credits somehow saves the environment from imminent destruction. This is an asinine and unscientific assertion. They should be sued for false advertising.
    • 0xbaadf00d, on 03/04/2008, -3/+2Ya, OJ is innocent, too.
    • culbeda, on 03/04/2008, -4/+1I wish I lived in your fantasy world. It seems much cheerier than mine.
    • caponumen, on 03/05/2008, -0/+1Sorry, but climatology is still largely just a pseudo-science ( double blind studies are impossible and not even attempted ), therefore
      ant evidence brought to court is purely antidotal at best.
  • XxERMxX, on 03/04/2008, -5/+64Bring on the facts! On both sides.
    • DavidYeah, on 03/04/2008, -8/+13So, denialists should rest their case the second they walk into the room.
      • slvrbullet87, on 03/04/2008, -7/+11Oh you mean the fact there has been changes in CO2 levels before heavy industry
        • norman619, on 03/04/2008, -10/+18Don't forget the fact that the globe has actually COOLED. 100 years of warming were erased in 12 months.

          http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Repo ...

          The alarmists all say "It's just a year." They ignore the fact that they have been blaming human CO2 and pollution for the warming and the fact that all the warming they have been blaming humans far all all but vanished. CO2 levels have not dropped and neither have the pollution levels. They don't offer any explanation for what caused it. They choose to ignore the implications of this event. Had it been in the opposite direction they'd be signing their songs of gloom and doom. It's pretty sad.
        • DavidYeah, on 03/04/2008, -3/+5Okay, let me know when the dip in temperate is explained in some way that disproves three decades of global warming science. You're passing off popular science speculation as if there is some sort of weight to it.
          • norman619, on 03/04/2008, -2/+4Please tell me how the temps can drop so drastically w/o ANY drop in the factors you guys have been saying are the cause? I wanna see if you can pull your head out of your butt long enough to give us a valid scientific explanation which does not invalidate the assumptions the Human Caused Global Warming folks. Perhaps the drastic change w/o ANY drop in the supposed causes of climate change should tell ANY thinking person that you are wrong about what is driving the climate change? No way! That shows too much thought and reason. Shows the presence of critical thinking. You go ahead and pretend this didn't happen.
          • angryredplanet, on 03/05/2008, -0/+1@norman619

            Hmmm... extreme weather fluctuations. Isn't that a cause for concern rather than an excuse for you to get on a pedestal and banter about how AGW is false? Have you considered that the phenomena may actually be linked?

            Remember, we're looking at one month, January 2008. I'll also take the time to remind you that "average global surface temperature" doesn't represent "world temperature" as specified by that cool looking graph (pun intended). The recent warming effect does not affect the entire globe uniformly. Some areas see a rising surface temp, others see a decline. The graph on the page you cite also does show drops in "world temp" over short periods, they are just not of the order of that measured for Jan '08. It's worthwhile noting here that these periods of relative cooling don't change the overall trend... upward.

            Don't believe me? I live in Australia and over the last month the region I live in has been hotter and drier than it ever has been over the same time period in recorded history. Deserts that are 600 km inland have had their wettest summer ever on record. So what does that say about the story you quote? They're right and I'm wrong - I only live here.
        • JDKruger4, on 03/04/2008, -4/+2There sure is an explaination. The Earth has thermal interia so it takes a while to respond to forcings. And CO2 is not the only driver... There are many other effects, such as the 11 solar cycle, the cycle of the tilt of the earth in orbit, CO2 as well as methane and numerous other greenhouse gases which all have a measurable impact, in addition aerosols which generally have a cooling effect by sheilding the planet from incident solar energy.

          I agree many alarmists can be a little rediculous, but when we are looking at climate we are looking at decadal global averages that show progressions. So yes not EVERY year will be warmer, there may be 4 or 5 years in a row slightly cooler, the point is there is a general trend in one direction (regression trend). Before you listen to illegitamate disclaimers please fully educated yourself so that you can make a solid arguement in one direction or the other. I can recommend a couple great resources:
          www.ipcc.ch
          http://realclimate.org/
          • BigManOnCampus, on 03/04/2008, -2/+3What you say is fine. Except that if you can have such a huge drop in temperature over 12 months, that means the "noise" in the climate signal is actually still bigger than the trend we seek to see.

            What you point to is dubious.
      • DavidYeah, on 03/04/2008, -4/+3What's your point? The logic of what you're saying is that co2 levels went through changes before heavy industry, therefore, heavy industry did not effect co2 levels.
        That's horrible logic, and it proves nothing.
    • pintomp3, on 03/04/2008, -5/+6it won't matter. otherwise the trial in dover, PA would have ended all debate about evolution:
      http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/
      global warming deniers deny the vast majority of scientists finding because it doesn't fit into their view. a trial won't change that.
      • norman619, on 03/04/2008, -3/+5The Human Caused Global Warming faithful deny the vast majority of scientists who's work does not agree with their choice of scientists. They have turned a scientific question into a political and almost religious debate. They try to make it sound like only handful of scientists don't agree when this is not the case. Grow up and do some of your own thiking for once. Look at ALL of the data.
        • willfe, on 03/04/2008, -1/+2"Look at ALL of the data."

          Please present some. Cite your sources[*]

          [*]Not (deliberately) quoting/referencing Wikipedia with that request, btw.
    • caponumen, on 03/05/2008, -0/+1Sorry, but climatology is still largely just a pseudo-science ( double blind studies are impossible and not even attempted ), therefore
      ant evidence brought to court is purely antidotal at best.
  • Isidore, on 03/04/2008, -49/+33The scientific evidence and consensus is with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Just as the scientific evidence and consensus is for evolution.

    No one on the IPCC doubts that there are cycles and natural factors. The question is whether the global warming observed since the mid 1970's has a significant human cause. The IPCC says yes with 90% certainty.

    Natural causes alone (Milankovitch cycles, sunspots, solar activity, volcanoes etc.), cannot explain climate variations since the mid 1970s http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/ ...

    but adding human causes we get a prediction much closer to observations http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/ ...

    Sir David Attenborough was once a climate skeptic, believing that all global warming can all be explained by natural causes and cycles. He changed his mind, this is why http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9ob9WdbXx0 (3 mins)

    The hypothesis that natural causes alone explain recent climate change has been falsified.
    • zelig, on 03/04/2008, -28/+24"The question is whether the global warming observed since the mid 1970's has a significant human cause. The IPCC says yes with 90% certainty."

      Yeah, there was about 90% certainty that he New England Patriots were going to win the Super Bowl, too.
      • zeitgueist, on 03/04/2008, -12/+7Wow, at least 8 people are stupider than I gave them credit for.(7 diggs so far)
    • michael4lsu, on 03/04/2008, -21/+2790.3262% of statistics are made up. Can the IPCC explain why earth has experienced so much climate change before the industrial revolution? Can the IPCC explain why all the other planets in the solar system experience climate change as well, if it isn't made-made?
    • BigBlueCarbon, on 03/04/2008, -12/+15the things that have been falsified are hockey stick, sloppy bs temp proxies, and pathetic gcms that claim to model a chaotic system.
    • BigManOnCampus, on 03/04/2008, -14/+2190% certainty is a number that is thrown out to impress and convince, it has no basis in reality. I would challenge anyone to discover on what grounds the IPCC justifies saying they have a 90% certainty. The Earth is a chaotic system where weathermen who have been predicting weather for decades are still surprised on a weekly basis when their predictions turn out false. But now some bureaucratic organization with less than 15 years of research in an entirely new field of research has a 90% certainty that Humanity is primarily to blame for changing the climate.

      That should make *anyone* question it.
      • dracostimpy, on 03/04/2008, -3/+3I take "90% certainty" as meaning "10% honest with the rest on the dole".
    • Railer, on 03/04/2008, -14/+15What about the 200 years of global warming before 1970? It's a truly arrogant ant who sees a rock rolling down a hill, give it a push with one of his legs and then states, "I did that!"
    • wrongonce, on 03/04/2008, -10/+2Soooo, global warming has only been AGW since 1970?
      That is what you said, isn't it?
    • romistrub, on 03/04/2008, -4/+11Yeah... but the theory opposing evolution is "cuz god", whereas the opposing view on "global warming" isn't "not global warming", it's "natural climate change".
    • iheartboobs, on 03/04/2008, -2/+1I wonder if any of the people that dugg you down have actually spent time researching this issue.
    • osko2052, on 03/04/2008, -3/+2Wow, I'm impressed. It looks like Mommy taught you how to copy and paste.
  • Dhalsim007, on 03/04/2008, -5/+61Hehe ... the consensus is that lawyers are going to be rich on both sides....
    • michael4lsu, on 03/04/2008, -18/+19Small price to pay if it prevents the Al Gores on the other side from profiting from a hoax at taxpayers and American industry's expense. That's the system America has. The alternatives to courts is anarchy and violence, or totalitarianism.
    • caponumen, on 03/05/2008, -0/+3Yes, the lawyer in CALI have already racked up millions in the states pursuit of the illegal regulation of CO2.
      Like you said the lawyers never lose........
  • vault, on 03/04/2008, -43/+49This weather channel founder suing the Goracle is my hero:

    "Coleman also told the audience his strategy for exposing what he called “the fraud of global warming.” He advocated suing those who sell carbon credits, which would force global warming alarmists to give a more honest account of the policies they propose."
    • Gazoo2001, on 03/04/2008, -3/+4Looks like you read the article, but didn't understand it. Why, right in your quoted section section above it states "he ADVOCATED suing those..." [emphasis mine], as in, he's not doing it but he sure hopes someone will.
  • thechr0nic, on 03/04/2008, -35/+102what I cant stand, is how the issue of 'man-made' global warming has become a religion.. a religion that strongly discourages dissent. The beautiful thing about science, is even if a theory is well regaurded and well established, it still must continually be tested and proven. Science encourages dissent, it encourages skeptics to test the theory and try their hardest to disprove it.
    Global warming zealots try to shout that most of the scientists that they can find seem to support what they are saying, so therefore it would be blasphemy to question it.
    Even if you can find 99.9999999999% of all scientists and people all agreeing, you should not stop testing the theory. Why is it that we have lost scope and value of the scientific method?

    keep in mind that most scientists thought that the earth was flat and had the sun revolving around earth, until the last hundred or so years...
    • SteelChicken, on 03/04/2008, -12/+26"keep in mind that most scientists thought that the earth was flat and had the sun revolving around earth, until the last hundred or so years..."

      UMMM, NO. Go just a little further back, LOL
      • thechr0nic, on 03/04/2008, -7/+23the point being, at one time it was accepted by a majority of scientists, theologians, sailors and ... well most people.
        at some time after that, the idea was refuted and then popular belief was changed.

        and if that wasn't clear enough let me put it this way. Even those ideas that are entrenched and 'accepted' can be changed. When you discourage skepticism you are doing a great dis-service.

        sorry if that sentence, blew your mind.. maybe next time you will see the meaning behind the analogy.
        • radix2, on 03/04/2008, -3/+7no - the ***** Greeks knew the earth was spherical. They even calculated its diameter quite accurately. The issue was ignorant peoples thoughts - such as the church. Modern science itself is probably only 200-250yrs old.
          • thechr0nic, on 03/04/2008, -1/+4Jesus Christ.. All it seems people want to do is pick at the semantics of what I guess we should call a bad analogy. The point of the analogy was this: A commonly held belief was found to be wrong and then corrected. (insert any belief that meets this description)

            Hopefully that is boiled down to something so simple and pure that people like you wont get all caught up with the semantics and fail to see the big picture.
        • mclev, on 03/04/2008, -4/+3The key difference being that the flat earth theory was mostly grounded on Christian religion and not science. Add the fact that measurement methodologies were much more primitive back then.

          Not saying that the analogy has no merit, but you can't simplify things just like that.
          • Valiantheart, on 03/05/2008, -0/+0Except I would consider Global Warming theories more similar to religious dogma than hard science.
    • BigManOnCampus, on 03/04/2008, -12/+30Absolutely correct chr0nic, you can't say it any better than that. The lack of attention to those who disagree, and the outright dismissal of the contrary arguments proves to me that AGW believers are zealots who are not thinking for themselves.
      • brad3378, on 03/05/2008, -2/+1zealots who are not thinking for themselves? Sounds like the recent Obama phenomenon on digg.
    • gzuckier, on 03/04/2008, -20/+11umm, no, "Most scientists" didn't think the earth was flat, nor did anybody who ever stood at the water's edge to see ships sail down over the horizon as they went out, then back up as they came in. don't assume your ancestors were as gullible as you. as for the sun revolving around the earth, it's just a frame of reference thing. the sun does revolve around the earth, but not in a nice simple orbit. Galileo's contribution was that it's a lot simpler if you look at it as the earth revolving around the sun, and could be explained by simple known scientific principles. just like it's a lot simpler if we assume that burning all that carbon and making the atmosphere absorb more heat explains climate change with simple known scientific principles, without requiring God or equivalent unknown forces to keep fiddling with the thermostat in unknown ways.
      • thechr0nic, on 03/04/2008, -6/+18I wrote out two paragraphs and all you can seem to focus on, is the last sentence where I tried to give a rough (maybe bad?) analogy where a commonly held belief was found to be wrong and then corrected.

        Please comprehend this: I believe that skepticism is good and is encouraged by science. I believe the scientific method is a very valuable tool, that appears to have been forgotten by a good majority of "global warming zealots" (hopefully i'm not talking about you).
    • sugarhigh4242, on 03/04/2008, -10/+25yes, Dessent is important in science. However, much of the global warming "skepticism" is sophistry designed to confuse the majority of non-experts into thinking this is a matter of heated debate among "scientists".

      Global Warming wasn't a controversial issue 15 years ago. The difference is now certain influential voices are asking for people to take action.
      • MindStalker, on 03/04/2008, -7/+4Global Warming wasn't a controversial issue 15 years ago.
        Because nobody including scientist believed in Global Warming 15 years ago, many did believe we were heading for an ice age. Pollution based climate change though was pretty well accepted.
        • Cryoniq, on 03/04/2008, -2/+3yeah he he, and back then they were thinking of ash the polar ice to help melt the ice caps and prevent global cooling and another ice age.. :D
      • BigManOnCampus, on 03/04/2008, -5/+6"However, much of the global warming "skepticism" is sophistry designed to confuse the majority of non-experts into thinking this is a matter of heated debate among "scientists"."

        That is a wholly generalized statement that dismisses arguments by very accomplished scientists and accuses them of horrific ethical violations. That has no meaning other than to say, "Scientists who question AGW are performing mass manipulation of people." which is a lie.
    • lucutus, on 03/04/2008, -1/+9Well actually it's closer to 500 years. By 1525 or so the traditional church policy of the earth being flat was no longer tenable. Now just over 100 years ago many things were different. For example it was expected to begin breeding with female humans at the onset of puberty, as it was expected for 1 in three children to die of consumption or small pox. However things have changed I do agree with your point somewhat and I frequently am disappointed in my fellow man's inability to recognize that what he has grown up believing as fact is not always fact but theory and was not fact before he was conceived.
      • BigManOnCampus, on 03/04/2008, -4/+2I want a return to the days when we were expected to mate at the onset of puberty.
    • shcforward, on 03/04/2008, -1/+7Actually, Pythagoras (and through his teachings, Plato and Aristotle) believed in a spherical earth. And Eratosthenes had estimated the circumference of the earth and was only about 10% off in 240 B.C. So way, way back more than 100 years.

      But otherwise, I couldn't agree with you more. Science IS all about testing all the things you think you know, and it is human nature to take things to a religious / unquestionable level - science needs to fight back.
    • dash1185, on 03/04/2008, -11/+5Sure you've got to have a pretty open mind about the science behind global warming. But this is a pretty urgent matter. If global warming is a religion, then what is anti-global warming ? It's a religion too, and its zealots don't know ***** about science, get their facts on so-called independent blogs, buy into globalist conpiracy theories and keep insulting Gore despite the fact that he hasn't written a single article about global warming, but is hust "spreading the word". Sure Gore, like almost every politician out there, is a hypocrite flying around in his jet, but who cares ?
      I do not understand what is wrong in advocating for greener energy sources and reduction of emissions. These are things we ought to do anyway because fossile fuels will only be around for one more century. If in 30 years we realize we could have done something to limit our effect on the climate but didn't, only because of some anti-science conspirationnists fanatics, whose fault will it be ?
      • toxicshok, on 03/04/2008, -2/+2Ok ok. I don't understand here. Both sides seem to think that the "globalists" are on the other side. You're just tossing around "scary" words.
        • dash1185, on 03/05/2008, -0/+1ok i meant "globalists' conspiracy".
        • goomba323, on 03/05/2008, -0/+2You do have a point. Anti-Global Warming people think that there are global elitist who want us to be in fear and limit our carbon emissions and buy into the whole scare. Global Warming people think there are global elitist who DON'T want us to believe in global warming because that would mean putting limits on large corporations who play a big role in government and policy decisions.

          Personally, whether I am Global Warming believer or not aside, I think the elites would much rather us NOT believe in global warming. George Bush (one of the so-called "elites) and many owners of corporations (oil and car companies) have all claimed that global warming is a lie. I don't see how it is beneficial to the "elites" to have a big global warming scare. Are these "scientist" part of the elites?? Because if so, how do THEY PERSONALLY benefit from doing research that supports global warming?
    • tmbrwolf19, on 03/04/2008, -2/+2While I agree with you whole heartedly, I don't think it is just proponents of AGW. Both side have their share of people unwilling to accept data and studies. I have heard just as many absurd argument from those who are claim global warming is natural as those who believe humans are the cause. The truth is anyone claiming one side is right has no place in the debate.
    • jm4847, on 03/04/2008, -0/+2I couldn't have said it better myself.
    • DavidYeah, on 03/04/2008, -5/+10"Even if you can find 99.9999999999% of all scientists and people all agreeing, you should not stop testing the theory. Why is it that we have lost scope and value of the scientific method?"

      It's not a ***** head count. Science is not democratic in that a bunch of scientists cast votes or anything... 100% of the studies since the beginning of global warming study have shown that global warming is happening and that man is proving it. 100%.

      Second, studies HAVE been ongoing. And they continue to build the mound of evidence that supports global warming science.

      Third, we HAVE lost scope of the value of the scientific method, and it is your side of the debate that is perpetuating that confusion. People now believe that science is a public debate, and no matter how certain the science is (95% or so in the case of global warming), we should never trust it. There is always two sides to the scientific argument, your side will claim, even when the science is so well established that 30 years of labor backs it up. I

      t is you that is killing science.
      • RabidAngel, on 03/04/2008, -4/+4/applause

        Exactly. The science is not "still out" because IT IS NOT STILL OUT! Three decades of records, of testing, of literally thousands of scientists reaching the same conclusions. The sense of urgency in getting past the fractional group of holdouts is due to the rapid advancement of the warming trend. If global warming turns out to be a non-issue, we spend a bunch of money cleaning up after ourselves. If it's real and we do nothing, well...
    • lucutus, on 03/05/2008, -1/+1The "SIDES" are a direct result of the msm influence on society based on ratings. There mist be controversy or shock for any debate to gain nationwide interest.
  • michael4lsu, on 03/04/2008, -26/+25Even if the lawsuit was proving that global warming is a hoax created for the purpose of wealth redistribution and power grabs, the Big Media would not give the findings much attention.

    As for the weather channel being for sale, you can bet that the globalist elite who are trying to profit from this global warming hoax in the first place will be the ones to buy it. They have bottomless pockets from which to outbid anyone on this thing. No eccentric billionaire will by up this channel because weather is their hobby, or because it is a lucrative business to own. It will be bought by someone with a political agenda who wants THEIR message to get out, and the globalist elite will easily outbid any well-meaning potential buyers.
    • BigManOnCampus, on 03/04/2008, -6/+11The best way to get rich is to create a new market, and get in on the ground floor.

      Carbon trading is the market, and the global elite (former currency market peeps) were already camped out in line.
    • gzuckier, on 03/04/2008, -11/+3and in fact, the world's biggest manufacturers of solar panels, for instance, are now chinese companies. yeah, now that we can't get rich by selling our houses to each other any more, we'll get rich on the world market selling 10 mpg 6,000 lb SUVs. good plan, oughta work.
    • tmbrwolf19, on 03/04/2008, -3/+5When people make arguments like yours, I honestly doubt their ability to rationalize scientific data. While sure it may provide a plausible explanation for a situation, taking a real objective look at the shear amount of logistics required to pull off such a scheme tears the explanation to pieces. There are simply too many holes in the idea this is some form of global government conspiracy to for what you are saying to make the slightest shred of sense.
      • goomba323, on 03/05/2008, -1/+3Dugg because I agree. What is more plausible is a global elite that is ANTI global warming. The governments/large corporations (you know, the "elites" that you refer to) make BILLIONS of dollars in ravaging our natural resources and most of those "elites" that you refer, DENOUNCE global warming. So who are these "elites". Heads of WHICH corporation? Heads of WHICH government (certainly not ours, Bush reluctantly admitted there was a such thing as global warming after the overwhelming research done by scientist that favored the theory.... he didn't want to look TOO backwards with his Bush-logic)?
    • DavidYeah, on 03/04/2008, -1/+3Wouldn't it suck if a globalist billionaire like Rupert Murdoch bought out dozens of media outlets in the world and attempted to control the debate through those outlets? Wow, that would be awful.
  • BigBlueCarbon, on 03/04/2008, -6/+40...after all, it's not the "climate channel".
    • radix2, on 03/04/2008, -1/+13Dugg for the succinct summary. There is a world of difference between climate and weather.
  • Rich711, on 03/04/2008, -32/+25The fact that there HASN'T been a single lawsuit already is the closest thing to proof against global warming theory.

    No evil corporate or government conspiracy could stop greedy lawyers from multi-billion dollar class action lawsuits against the biggest CO2 producers if they really could prove CO2 caused global warming.

    But then again that polar bear cartoon of Al Gore's was pretty convincing. And what about the his chart that he made SO big he needed a crane to point to it. If that fact alone didn't show how idiotic anyone would have to be to not see through his exaggeration, it also turns out he read the chart wrong. No wonder he had a C average in science!
    • Jexie, on 03/04/2008, -7/+13No lawsuit = no global warming? You might wanna take a course in logic. Also, you're wrong to boot, the natives up north have been suing the oil companies.
      • Rich711, on 03/05/2008, -1/+3If you can prove global warming is caused by private industries like automakers and you can prove global warming is harmful to peoples health, property or occupation, even polar bears, then you would have lawyers filing million dollar class action lawsuits against the biggest CO2 producers like you do for air polution, high tension electrical towers, industrial run-off etc... Forget the class you might just want to look up the word logic, jexie. You also might want to look into what the natives are sueing oil companies over, news flash, it's not that their CO2 is causing global warming. CO2 is not causing global warming. Al Gore tried to incorrectly show CO2 drove temperature but his own chart (which he has since admitted he 'may' have mis-understood) shows the rise in temperature recorded in the ice core come before the raise in CO2. Showing not only that temperature actually drives CO2 levels but also that the two are not the only 2 factors. Why wont Al Gore debate the subject? Maybe he cause he cant find a forum big enough for his oversized novelty chart.
        • goomba323, on 03/05/2008, -3/+1"Why wont Al Gore debate the subject?"

          Why would Al Gore debate the subject? He isn't a scientist. He was merely using other scientists' data and promoting awareness for the cause. He never claimed that any of the research he did was his. He never claimed to be a Global Warming expert. Buried.
    • dracostimpy, on 03/04/2008, -5/+4http://globalwarmingmasturbate.ytmnd.com/
    • jeopardydd, on 03/04/2008, -4/+2There have been plenty of lawsuits against big oil, the gov. for not doing anything to reduce CO2 levels, etc.

      The fact that you have not done any research does not mean that there haven't been any lawsuits.
      • Rich711, on 03/05/2008, -1/+1Name one.
        • goomba323, on 03/05/2008, -3/+1http://www.nowpublic.com/crime/environmental-world ...
          • climateHeretic, on 03/05/2008, -2/+3Did you read the article, there is nothing here that would pivot on the validity of CO2 warming claims.

            The Canadian case is about failing to live up to an agreement, just like if I sell you a car then do not honour the warrranty.

            So please do not misdirect this issue with the thousands of environmetal lawsuits, from pop cans on the highway to oil spills, filed each year by the same people who should be taken to task by this proposed legal action.
  • BECoole, on 03/04/2008, -29/+16It was sunny yesterday. Now it's raining. Oh no, the climate is changing again!
    • mclev, on 03/04/2008, -3/+5"Climate(noun): the weather in some location averaged over some long period of time"

      Emphasis on "long period of time".
      • BECoole, on 03/04/2008, -4/+4You need to take a look at the temperature graphs. You'll see that they fluctuate too.
        That's the thing the AGW shills don't seem to get - weather and climate are constantly changing.
        • mclev, on 03/04/2008, -2/+1I wasn't after your climate change beliefs. I was after the rather glib parent post that you did.
  • gabeh73, on 03/04/2008, -24/+43MIT's Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology Richard Lindzen. Don't you think a "broad consensus" would include a guy like this? http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2006/0 ... The fact that you willfully ignore the TOTAL LACK of a broad consensus of scientist adds to the evidence that this is all a politically motivated scam. You repeatedly make appeals to a IPCC "consensus" that has been shown to include psychiatrists, medical doctors, PHD's in sociology, Al Gore and political science majors amongst its reported experts. It is a joke and many of the scientist say they never agreed with all the crap the IPCC was calling for. They say that they agree to some very narrow definition of what was happening and then a bunch of slimy politiicans turn it into the pretext to start a world carbon tax.
    • gzuckier, on 03/04/2008, -9/+11ummm.... lindzen is on the ipcc. had a chance to be heard, presumably was; didn't feel the need to resign in protest or anything.
      • gabeh73, on 03/04/2008, -6/+10ummm...the things about the IPCC i've read indicate tehy got scientist to sign off on narrowly defined segmetns of the paper that had nothing to do with the huge political preface and summary statements that were the centerpiece of the document. Listen to Lindze...The fact that the UN is telling you Lindzen backs them just reinforces the fact that they are full of sh**.
      • whereiseljefe, on 03/04/2008, -0/+1A termite is more effective at bringing down a house than an ant.
    • mclev, on 03/04/2008, -5/+6Richard Lindzen is a professional shill. After sponsorship by tobacco companies, he argued against the dangers of passive smoking.
    • DavidYeah, on 03/04/2008, -3/+4Meteorologists are not climatologists. Thanks for confusing the debate, asshat.
      • gabeh73, on 03/05/2008, -1/+2If he isn't qualified, then why does the IPCC claim his support asshat?
    • elasticsoul, on 03/05/2008, -1/+1So one scientist doesn't hold to the majority view...at what point do we take action in your view? 100% agreement? You know that will never happen. If the majority of scientific evidence points to cigarette smoking causing cancer, we take action. Same rule for greenhouse gases.
  • BigManOnCampus, on 03/04/2008, -19/+6That's nice and all, but suing Al Gore over AIT is pointless and stupid. Al Gore was wrong on just about everything he said in AIT, and that will be borne out, so there's no need to sue him.
    • Rich711, on 03/04/2008, -9/+12Tell that to the schools that begin teaching global warming science this year. Tell a lie long enough and it might as well be truth, worse it becomes religion.
      • BigManOnCampus, on 03/04/2008, -9/+2Maybe, but I think we're past the "truth" stage at this point.
      • gzuckier, on 03/04/2008, -4/+11oh god, the irony, the irony.....
        • DavidYeah, on 03/04/2008, -2/+2Irony indeed.... It's pretty painful to watch this. Can these science denialists get any more pathetic?
  • gzuckier, on 03/04/2008, -15/+9doesn't a lawsuit require things like damages, and standing? of course, it worked out so well for irving when he tried to muzzle lisptadt with a lawsuit, i can see why it would seem tempting. and climate change denialists wonder why they are compared with holocaust denialists....
    • BigBlueCarbon, on 03/04/2008, -6/+2i don't wonder about it, i just know it's insulting and retarded.
  • Odopoddie, on 03/04/2008, -31/+50It seems America is the only country which still debates this issue.
    • BECoole, on 03/04/2008, -20/+36Why is Europe so irrational?
    • sztuka, on 03/04/2008, -12/+27Did you read the article? Obviously not because there's this: "Earlier at the conference Lord Christopher Monckton, a policy adviser to former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, told an audience that the science will eventually prevail and the “scare” of global warming will go away. He also said the courts were a good avenue to show the science."
      • elasticsoul, on 03/05/2008, -1/+1Being a Lord and a former policy adviser to a neocon are not reassuring credentials when it comes to climate change, especially when the more recent *scientific* advisers are saying quite the opposite.
    • BigManOnCampus, on 03/04/2008, -13/+29Maybe because this is the first country where traditional media is dying off very quickly?
      • whereiseljefe, on 03/04/2008, -7/+4I'm so retarded, I accientally buried your post, sorry: good point.
      • MrSlumberjack, on 03/05/2008, -1/+2Traditional media has more control of this country than they ever have.
      • elasticsoul, on 03/05/2008, -0/+1Yes, the primitive Europeans haven't discovered the internet yet.
    • jm4847, on 03/04/2008, -7/+8Let's just blindly accept the absolute indisputable truth, ***** yeah!
      • goomba323, on 03/05/2008, -1/+2Well I still believe the earth is flat and the sun revolves around us. Global Warming is just a rumor....God wouldn't allow such a thing to happen!!
    • GeorgeClayton, on 03/04/2008, -6/+7Yes, and in some places, some people actually still use their brains.
      • ogremidget, on 03/05/2008, -3/+4Personally, I think there very well could be global warming, but I'm just not certain that it is man-caused. For example, what caused the Ice Age to go away? Surely humans didn't cause the Earth to warm up all of those tens of thousands of years ago, so what caused it? One possible theory is that the Earth be simply going through a phase?
        • xNIBx, on 03/05/2008, -3/+2Planes fly and land all the time. But when a plane crashes, it is a completely different thing and i wouldnt call it a "landing". Just because the earth cools downs and gets warmer every now and then, doesnt mean that this time the same thing is happening. And from what i understand, this time the climate change is happening faster than ever before.

          This is common understanding in Europe. Yet in the US(which is the only country that refuses to sign environmental treaties like Kyoto), there seems to be a debate. But all this is completely understandable, since in the US, people still debating whether evolution is a myth or not. Take your time. I mean, what is the worst case scenario? Humanity and the entire planet die? So there is no pressure.

          What if you pollute the planet more than other countries? It isnt as if the enviroment is common for all countries. So as long as european countries take care of their enviroment, they will be fine, right? After all, they cant tell you what to do with your country and YOUR enviroment. So please, continue ***** up the planet for profit and leave us silly treehuggers trying desperately to live.

          PS I hate you for your liberties, especially the liberty to be retarded which so many americans seem to enjoy.
          • BECoole, on 03/05/2008, -0/+2The worst case is we could throw our money at trying to prevent Global Warming just in time to be swallowed by the glaciers of the next Ice Age.
            Given the choice between Global Warming and an Ice Age, I'll take Global Warming every time!

            Some previous Ice Ages have happened abruptly. Herds of elephants were frozen with food still in their mouths.
        • ogremidget, on 03/05/2008, -1/+3Oh, from your understanding the planet is heating up faster THIS time. Tell me, how do you know that it is heating up faster? Please, tell me what was so retarded about my argument? Clearly the Earth goes through cycles because of the evidence that there have been a series of Ice Ages. What causes those Ice Ages to come and go?

          Try answering the question instead of pointing fingers.

          And I never mentioned pollution, so you must assumed that I LOVE pollution. I think it is our responsibility to become more energy efficient and reduce the pollution. And as for my country polluting the most, just look at China.
        • elasticsoul, on 03/05/2008, -0/+2Og - check the science. Scientists are well aware that the earth has gone through ice ages, that there are fluctuations in solar intensity, etc. And they have ascribed previously different climates to different things. For example, ice ages are generally related to our distance from the sun, and the scientists predict that there will be another ice age - in 10-15,000 years or so. (I can't remember when we'll be far enough away from the sun for that to happen, but it was in that time frame.)
    • pw378, on 03/05/2008, -2/+7While America investigates, Europe brings back the inquisition for AGW. I am proud Americans are willing to debate and discuss issues while the rest of the world will blindly accept whatever the media tosses at them.
      • elasticsoul, on 03/05/2008, -1/+2In reality, you are proud of America for a faith-based rejection of science. Your own top scientists are trying to get the message through, but you insist on debating based on the opinions of people and 'think tanks' that are funded by the oil and auto industries.
  • wrongonce, on 03/04/2008, -4/+9As far as I can understand the concept, it would be a case against those making money from the concept of AGW. For example -- anyone selling carbon offsets/credits under the premise that it is in some way preventing a global catastrophe.
    Can't see where an adherent to the AGW hypothesis would be upset by this. As a matter of fact, it should be a welcome opportunity to prove the case for AGW.
    So all should be in favor of a lawsuit!
    • BigManOnCampus, on 03/04/2008, -1/+5I wholly disagree. Science is not a matter of debate, not a matter of law. Science is a matter of falsification. In the courts you are held to a standard that is defined with words, not deeds. If we use the courts to determine what is scientifically acceptable, then what is and is not scientific bends to the whim of a single judge, rather than a community of scientific investigators.

      IF, however, the lawsuit is simply used to prevent people from being charged for carbon credits, well then that's an economic issue.
      • radix2, on 03/04/2008, -6/+4Yah - a judge is likely to rule that it is treasonous to mention AGCC as his court in Florida welcomes the waves lapping gently on the ten-commandments monument out the front.. Or then again the judge might take the time to learn the science and throw the case out of court.
  • crenstrom, on 03/04/2008, -12/+22This is an excellent idea. The themometers that have been used to measure temperature for any length of time are primarily in the US & western Europe. Those weather stations (often at airports) were once built out in the middle of the landscape but now the local landscape around them is changing... buildings, roads, farms, etc. It's typically 2-3 degrees cooler at my house than at the airport the 'official' temperature is measured. If climate is measured over time and if the stations that we use the readings from have all experienced some level of micro-climate change, then can the recordings really be trusted as representative of the whole planet?
    • evilcaptain, on 03/04/2008, -4/+4It is all satellites now, isn't it?
      • BigManOnCampus, on 03/04/2008, -3/+8No. Satellites are one data source, but ground stations are still a major source of temperature data.
      • wrongonce, on 03/05/2008, -0/+2Looking at satellites, there really isn't much to get excited about. That is why AGW proponents advocate GISS and HADCRUT data, as they are more extreme on the warming side.
    • swrostmore, on 03/04/2008, -14/+6Urban concentration http://gristmill.grist.org/images/user/6932/earthl ...
      NASA GISS global temperature map http://gristmill.grist.org/images/user/6932/global ...

      According to your "theory" the highest temperatures should coincide with population centers in the US and Europe. Its quite easy to see that they do not.
      • BigManOnCampus, on 03/04/2008, -4/+10That is incorrectly stated. according to his "theory" the highest temperature CHANGE should coincide with population centers, not necessarily the highest temperatures. Very clever miswording though.
      • swrostmore, on 03/04/2008, -6/+4You're right, it is incorrectly stated. "2005 NASA GISS Global Temperature Anamoly" is a map of global temperature CHANGE and not a map of temperature. The areas of highest change (the warmest and coolest colors) should correspond with population centers and they obviously do not. My mistake.
    • swrostmore, on 03/04/2008, -4/+10A 2003 paper ("Assessment of urban versus rural in situ surface temperatures in the contiguous United States: No difference found"; J climate; Peterson; 2003) indicates that the effects of the urban heat island may have been overstated, finding that "Contrary to generally accepted wisdom, no statistically significant impact of urbanization could be found in annual temperatures." This was done by using satellite-based night-light detection of urban areas, and more thorough homogenisation of the time series (with corrections, for example, for the tendency of surrounding rural stations to be slightly higher, and thus cooler, than urban areas). As the paper says, if its conclusion is accepted, then it is necessary to "unravel the mystery of how a global temperature time series created partly from urban in situ stations could show no contamination from urban warming." The main conclusion is that micro- and local-scale impacts dominate the meso-scale impact of the urban heat island: many sections of towns may be warmer than rural sites, but meteorological observations are likely to be made in park "cool islands."
    • zeitgueist, on 03/04/2008, -7/+15Holy crap you guys are still trotting this ***** out? It's like the creationists......

      Yes go talk to Climatologists....I'm sure nobody working in a the field with a PhD has EVER thought of this, and nobody in peer-reviewed journals has brought this up.
      • radix2, on 03/04/2008, -3/+4What? You expect people to spend years on gaining knowledge about a subject, when they can just flick to their favourite website and get an informed opinion ready made? It is obvious from the comments in this thread that to understand all of the data that has led scientists to the conclusion hat the Earth's climate is changing and mans activities have accelerated it, one just needs to squeeze one's eyes shut and claim it to be a conspiracy to get more tax dollars.
        • ShadowMerchant, on 03/05/2008, -1/+2Whether or not AGW is true, the anti-AGW cause most certainly is being appropriated by left-wing politicians and non-profit organizations in a grab for money and power that previously has been denied to them at the ballot box.
      • DavidYeah, on 03/04/2008, -4/+2These guys love to think of themselves as rock throwers, crashing the scientific establishment and putting holes in theories. Nevermind that decades of study went into these studies, peer review and that the recreation of results would have quashed any bad science a long time ago......
        No no, science denialists have the goods that years of education and decades of scientific experience simply cannot reproduce. These folks have just enough knowledge, far too much ignorance, and anti-establishment ideas towards science, and those three things put together makes them dangerous.
    • lucutus, on 03/04/2008, -0/+2The same is true for me. If the global temp is decided by readings collected by members of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Weather Service then the sample is lacking true data. Not only are most data points surrounded by Acres of black asphalt they are also flat and in near proximity to massive radar systems. There are more sources for data but not quite as regulated like the weather underground. Locally I like to compare differences between http://www.nws.noaa.gov with http://www.georgiaweather.net/ I see differences of 10% plus sometimes. Right now the temps are close within .5 degrees but humidity is in disagreement by 6%.
    • sir_zman, on 03/04/2008, -1/+2yes, and the degree of accuracy has increased over the past 150 years, so a much more accurate measurement is taken now, compared to then, so it stands to reason that there will be a degree of difference now given better measurement and reporting methods.
    • caponumen, on 03/05/2008, -0/+1ALL the data is "fudged" due to the urban island effect.
      But even if it where perfectly accurate, 100 years is a meaningless sample, when you consider we have been in this current system cycle for around 64 million years.
  • jstohler, on 03/04/2008, -12/+77When did the majority of Diggers start doubting global warming?
    • ConfusedONE, on 03/04/2008, -16/+15When Alex Jones told them it was a conspiracy. Seriously. Check his crappy sites.
    • CJDUFFMAN, on 03/04/2008, -35/+38when they started thinking
    • OSURoss, on 03/04/2008, -27/+19It's not a majority...it's 5-10 right-wing virgins.
    • DavidYeah, on 03/04/2008, -17/+29I was just wondering that. Of course, there has been an anti-science surge in general over the last few days that has been working hard at casting doubt on global warming science, and it's finally sinking it. The industries found the arguments that work, sadly. Science doesn't matter if anti-science has a few good slogans.

      Also, having Al Gore at the forefront of this was as bad as it was good. He drew attention to the issue, but he's also acting as a lightning rod, as if it was him who wrote all the facts in his movie when he was simply acting as a stenographer for the body of work that has gone towards global warming science. There's an established hate towards Al Gore from his years in the white house and as a presidential candidate. By associating himself with the science, all attacks on him reflect badly on the science.
      • superkendall, on 03/04/2008, -15/+15Being against the global warming scare is being pro-science, not against it. Too many people that propagate global warming horror stories moved beyond science long ago and now operate on a faith based model. Gore is as much a priest now as he is anything else, and I refuse to be suckered into a movement now based more on emotion than fact.
        • goomba323, on 03/05/2008, -1/+3Except the majority of scientist believe in global warming. How exactly is that "anti-science"?
    • puter, on 03/04/2008, -22/+20The majority of diggers don't doubt global warming, they doubt the human cause of global warming. The problem with us trying to say what is happening to the environment is that we don't have a clue. there are been far greater swings in the environment in the history of the earth than what is happening now.

      One volcano lets off the equivalent of 10 years of human-produced greenhouse gases.

      The climate began changing BEFORE the industrial revolution, when we were not producing nearly as much pollution

      Humans account for less than a percent of greenhouse gases, yet the claim is that we are causing global warming?

      This is like when we attempted to manage forests. Some of the worst ecological tragedies have happened when governments have tried to manage wildlife areas. We tried to keep them the same, which destroyed them. The earth is dynamic, it was not meant to stay the say...climate is supposed to change, ecological systems are supposed to very, species are supposed to come into existence and go extinct.

      We do not know enough to be able to say anything about global warming. It is too big of a system with too many variables.
      • radix2, on 03/04/2008, -5/+7Do you think scientists haven't accounted for those things? The fact remains that the last 200 years coincides with the fast climate change in the measurable past (a few 100K years). The last 200 years also happens to be the period when humans have undergone a massive industrial revolution and started pumping trillions of tonnes of bound gas into the atmosphere. It is not volcanic activity. It is not solar activity. It is either man's activity or some unknown factor.

        The warnings about global climate change are not new. I believe it was mentioned in about 1924 for instance.
        • BigManOnCampus, on 03/04/2008, -3/+5First, Scientists are humans, they make mistakes. As proof I offer the subject of eugenics, the universal ether, etc..
          Hell, Einstein himself had trouble accepting parts of Quantum Mechanics that today are central to the theory.

          Second, coincidence does not equal causation. Just because two things happened together does not mean that one caused the other.
      • Cryoniq, on 03/04/2008, -1/+5"One volcano lets off the equivalent of 10 years of human-produced greenhouse gases. "

        Actually.. one volcano of, lets say latest outbreak on Iceland, let off more green house gases than humans ever produced during whole existence. But.. the smaller ones.. that erupt all around the world tons of times each year on a much smaller scale could be just that figure.

        And there been eruptions in history so large at scale that they been coating the atmosphere and put earth in shadow for many yeards ahead causing massive global climade changes as well. Changes that probably are responsible for us all existing today even.
      • goomba323, on 03/05/2008, -1/+2"The majority of diggers don't doubt global warming, they doubt the human cause of global warming."

        I dunno man, if that were the case I wouldn't be so alarmed, but there seems to be a lot of Diggers who flat out doubt that there is even a such thing as Global Warming. They talk about it as if it's a massive rumor conjured up by scientist to enable some massive elitist agenda.

        With that said, I believe in Global Warming (or "climate change", to not confuse the people who are going to bombard me with links to a site that shows the climate DROPPING over the past year, as if that has any sort of relevance). But I agree that it's still up to debate how much humans have contributed to bringing about the change in climate.
    • zeitgueist, on 03/04/2008, -5/+16I don't know but it blows my mind.
    • thelastcivilian, on 03/04/2008, -14/+26I doubt it's the majority. Looks like a coalition of doubters who dugg the story early banded together to digg up/bury comments, etc.
      • qwertis, on 03/04/2008, -2/+3if that were the case, wouldn't your comment be buried as well?
        • WasabiBomb, on 03/04/2008, -2/+4It seems to take a while for the average Digger to find these stories. These articles always seem to follow the same schedule- article is produced, and early on, anti-AGW comments are dugg. Then after a bit, those comments start being dugg down, and pro-AGW comments start being dugg up.

          This really lends credence to thelastcivilian's theory.
        • elasticsoul, on 03/05/2008, -2/+1That is exactly what happened in my case. I just got to this story, and have been horribly dismayed by the anti-science, anti-reality closemindedness up until now.
    • Jexie, on 03/04/2008, -15/+24When the majority of diggers got outnumbered by conservative trolls constantly going through the boards. Digg's message content has changed dramatically in the last few months.
      • keymanjim2, on 03/04/2008, -12/+12Liberals get mad when their own games are played against them.
        It makes it hard for them to turn this place into a left wing echo chamber like they did with all of the other sites they've infected.
        • Jexie, on 03/04/2008, -5/+6Waaah, how dare those liberals congregate somewhere without having conservatives feeling like everything is taken over. So what, digg attracts the left, places like freerepublic attract the right. I've never once felt the need to go 'fix' things on conservative dominated sites, apparently you cannot say the same.
          • keymanjim2, on 03/04/2008, -3/+2It's called the democraticunderground.com
            Try posting there sometime. I can't because I don't do groupthink.
          • DavidYeah, on 03/04/2008, -3/+7In all fairness, free republic is openly right wing. Digg is not openly left wing.
            Digg operates in reality, and reality, as we all know, has a clear liberal bias.
          • keymanjim2, on 03/04/2008, -5/+3Actually, the statement goes: "Bias is the only reality that liberals believe."
      • puter, on 03/04/2008, -4/+6Hate to break it to you, but I'm not conservative.

        I just don't think we know anywhere near enough to make a claim either way. I'm not saying we are not affecting global warming, I'm just saying that we don't have a clue what we're doing. I can tell you that us cutting down trees is having a hell of a lot more of an effect than our emissions.
        • Jexie, on 03/04/2008, -5/+5There's nothing to break to me, you're not acting like a juvenile troll. There's plenty of reasonable conservative digg viewers - then there is the 'freeper' crowd who permanently feel like digg is some secret libral conspiracy that must be stopped. Digg is getting that type in droves.

          And PS - I agree with you 100% that we don't have a clue about all this. I also tend to agree about trees/emissions.
          • keymanjim2, on 03/04/2008, -3/+2Paranoid much?
          • Jexie, on 03/04/2008, -3/+3Stalk much keymanjim? there's nothing to be paranoid about since every post you make here proves what I said.
          • ShagratOfMordor, on 03/04/2008, -2/+3Conspiracy, no. It did suck when every 3rd article on the site came from dailykos or something similar. If there is a right wing bury brigade offsetting the still massive left wing digg patrol then the site is all the better for it. Try to imagine every 3rd article being from the farthest right wing blog when only a small portion of the audience actually wants to read the article but diggs just because it's their "side"
        • elasticsoul, on 03/05/2008, -0/+1> we don't have a clue what we're doing. I can tell you that us cutting down trees is having a hell of a lot more of an effect than our emissions.

          And you don't see how you just contradicted yourself there? You don't know, but by golly, you do know!
    • mclev, on 03/04/2008, -3/+17Since diggers developed reactionarist skepticism. Apparently, it's enough to just be skeptic against one side of the argument.

      If you're going to be a skeptic, do it properly. Ask questions for both sides. Who will benefit from End Result A or B? Who could possibly be sponsoring information/disinformation methods? Are the so-called experts from both ends being help up by people with big pockets; and if so, who has more of a financial leverage?
      • DavidYeah, on 03/04/2008, -1/+4"Since diggers developed reactionarist skepticism. Apparently, it's enough to just be skeptic against one side of the argument."
        Brilliantly put. There's a certain appeal to being the guy throwing the rock through the windows of the establishment. It's often so misplaced nowadays.
    • lucutus, on 03/04/2008, -7/+8I can't speak for the majority but personally it was um... well the whole time it's been a popular issue I've not seen one shred of actual proof that any climatologists, meteorologists or computer models have accurate data, readings, or predictions. I have however seen how wrong many have been such as last Tuesday when I was awoken by a tornado yet there was no warning or prediction of such and the very next day I aw