Al Gore sued by over 30,000 Scientists for Global Warming fraud

Nice Try: “Will trade carbon credits for sex…” Believers will buy it…


Update: Australian Senator Steve Fielding wants to convince Al Gore he’s wrong

Al Gore sued by over 30,000 Scientists for Global Warming fraud John Coleman

Andrew Bolt, update:

Al Gore lies on ABC television – or at least deceives by omission – about criticism of his wildly alarmist An Inconvenient Truth: 

HEATHER EWART: There was also, though, a British judge who ruled that there were in fact, I think, nine errors when it was challenged in court?

AL GORE: Well, the ruling was in my favour.

Pardon? Here, in fact, is what the judge actually said ”in favour” of Gore’s film:


However, as will be seen, some of the errors, or departures from the mainstream, by Mr Gore in AIT in the course of his dynamic exposition, do arise in the context of alarmism and exaggeration in support of his political thesis…

And which nine errors did the judge identify? Read on…


FARMERS have lost faith in long-term weather forecasts because they’re unreliable, the South Australian Farmers Federation said…

“The scale of current models make them unreliable measures…”

Robert W. Endlich: Let’s deal with the facts on global warming

Professor Paul Kengor isn’t surprised that Al Gore last week likened fighting global warming to fighting Nazis:

How can anyone take this man seriously? Well, the fact is we’ve done just that for almost 20 years…

Gore: you will be globalled: climate bill will help bring about “global governance”

The Sun And the Oceans Do Not Lie–The Global Warming Moonbats Do

Yid with Lid

Maybe what Gore should do is convince Mother Nature to cooperate, because the dire predictions of the “Church of Global Warming Moonbats” are not coming true. For example, according to the United States Weather Bureau:

  • This June is tied for the 8th coolest on record. The average temperature was 67.5. (That’s) 3.7 degrees below normal…which also occurred in 1897.
  • This was the coolest June since 1958…when the average temperature as 67.2 degrees.
  • Below average temperatures occurred on 23 out of 30 days this June…or 75 percent of the month
Despite the truth people like Britain’s Prince Charles are warning us about impending doom. The Prince says the earth only has 96 months left if we don’t fix this non existent problem.  Mark Steyn put it in perspective:

It takes a prince, heir to the thrones of Britain and Canada and Australia, Jamaica, Papua New Guinea, and a bunch of other places, to tell it like it is: You pampered consumerists are ruining the joint. In the old days, we didn’t have these kinds of problems. But then Mr. and Mrs. Peasant start remodeling the hovel, adding a rec room and indoor plumbing, replacing the emaciated old nag with a Honda Civic and driving to the mall in it, and next thing you know, instead of just having an extra yard of mead every Boxing Day at the local tavern and adding a couple more pustules to the escutcheon with the local trollop, they begin taking vacations in Florida. When it was just medieval dukes swanking about like that, the planet worked fine: That was “sustainable” consumerism. But now the masses want in. And, once you do that, there goes the global neighborhood.

By contrast, as an example of an exemplary environmentalist, the prince hailed his forebear, King Henry VIII. True, he had a lot of wives, but he did dramatically reduce Anne Boleyn’s carbon footprint.

While the global warming supporters have declared the end of debate, the sun, the atmosphere and the oceans still want to talk. This global warming theory is so full of holes that the only way its adherents can support it, is to cut off freedom of speech. That way we can be silent as we destroy the world’s economy:

Climate change: The sun and the oceans do not lie 

By Christopher Booker 

Faced with a “consensus” view which looks increasingly implausible, a fast-growing body of reputable scientists from many countries has been coming up with a ”counter-consensus”, which holds that their fellow scientists have been looking in wholly the wrong direction to explain what is happening to the world’s climate. The two factors which most plausibly explain what temperatures are actually doing are fluctuations in the radiation of the sun and the related shifting of ocean currents. 

Two episodes highlight the establishment’s alarm at the growing influence of this ”counter consensus”. In March, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which has a key role in President Obama’s plans to curb CO2 emissions, asked one of its senior policy analysts, Alan Carlin, to report on the science used to justify its policy. His 90-page paper recommended that the EPA carry out an independent review of the science, because the CO2 theory was looking indefensible, while the “counter consensus” view – solar radiation and ocean currents – seemed to fit the data much better. Provoking a considerable stir, Carlin’s report was stopped dead, on the grounds that it was too late to raise objections to what was now the EPA’s official policy. 

Meanwhile a remarkable drama has been unfolding in Australia, where the new Labor government has belatedly joined the “consensus” bandwagon by introducing a bill for an emissions-curbing “cap and trade” scheme, which would devastate Australia’s economy, it being 80 per cent dependent on coal. The bill still has to pass the Senate, which is so precisely divided that the decisive vote next month may be cast by an independent Senator, Stephen Fielding. So crucial is his vote that the climate change minister, Penny Wong, agreed to see him with his four advisers, all leading Australian scientists. 

Fielding put to the minister three questions. How, since temperatures have been dropping, can CO2 be blamed for them rising? What, if CO2 was the cause of recent warming, was the cause of temperatures rising higher in the past? Why, since the official computer models have been proved wrong, should we rely on them for future projections? 

The written answers produced by the minister’s own scientific advisers proved so woolly and full of elementary errors that Fielding’s team have now published a 50-page, fully-referenced “Due Diligence” paper tearing them apart. In light of the inadequacy of the Government’s reply, the Senator has announced that he will be voting against the bill. 

The wider significance of this episode is that it is the first time a Western government has allowed itself to be drawn into debating the science behind the global warming scare with expert scientists representing the “counter consensus” – and the “consensus” lost hands down. 

We still have a long way to go before that Copenhagen treaty is agreed in December, and with China, India and 128 other countries still demanding trillions of dollars as the price of their co-operation, the prospect of anything but a hopelessly fudged agreement looks slim. But even a compromise could inflict devastating damage on our own economic future – all for a theory now shot so full of holes that its supporters are having to suppress free speech to defend it. 

A Letter from reader Realist:

MessageHi Sheik its me Realist. Perhaps you may consider this as a subject for your Blog. The ‘Global Warming Con’ . In my experience the same sort of Moonbats who fall for this BS are the ones who vote for Obambi and other Left wing lunatics. I am attaching a fabulous comment I just read in the Daily Telegraph its eye opening.
“Anyone with at least 1/4 of a brain who lived thru the brief “global freezing” scare of the early ’70s which quietly flubbed as all its predictions were far more than just wrong, knows that the current global warming scare — originally justified by models created BY THE SAME GLOBAL FREEZING CHARLATANS — is just as much hooey as the first attempt of these 4th rate scientists to achieve name recognition and income from engagements to speak to crowds of ignoramuses and retards. All the data shows — repeat ALL the available historic data, bar none — that although CO2 and atmospheric temperature are correlated, it is WITHOUT EXCEPTION the case that atmospheric temperature changes first, THEN much later the co2 level rises. It rises because of evaporation of co2 dissolved in the sea, more of which enters the atmosphere when surface sea temperatures are warmed. This is true for the data Gore shows in his famous “documendacity,” which he intentionally squeezes into a long time scale over a small chart so that the detail is obscured, since it shows the precise opposite cause  effect that he knows is the correct one in reality. The atmosphere has been far warmer in the past than now, and it has had at times at least 20 times the co2 concentration as at present. And… those times were wonderful times when plant and animal “biodiversity” flourished, as any botanist would tell you is the natural consequence of a little warming. That’s why life is easier in the warmer latitudes and terribly harsh in the northerly ones. We should PRAY (if religious) for global warming because it would go a long way toward ending world hunger, expanding the rain forests, increasing biodiversity and making this planet more of a heaven on earth than it already has the capacity to be. But the advocates of the global warming hoax are just SO incredibly uninformed (or such liars) that they are either unaware of (or hiding) their hypocrisy in advocating a war on non-existent man-caused warming that would, even if correct, accomplish all the other goals they claim to worship. It would be a colossal joke if these neanderthal numbskulls weren’t so populous and endowed with the voting power to destroy the lives of their betters along with their own suicides.

Solar activity, as mentioned in other posts, is also highly correlated with atmospheric temperature, something that ought to appear very common-sensical to anyone with 1/10th of a brain, and something which has been demonstrated to be EXTREMELY reliably correlated for much of earth’s history. So we have 3 correlated variables of concern(there are of course many others too, but they are not of concern here because we are addressing only the claims of a mass of mindless idiots parroting the propaganda of a few shrewd charlatan, so we can limit ourselves to examining only their stupid, worthless, and totally groundless claims). These are solar activity, atmospheric warming and co2 concentration in the atmosphere. And indeed the order I’ve mentioned them is the order of their causality. Solar activity increases, THEN the atmosphere warms as a result, and FINALLY, the co2 content of the atmosphere rises. Anyone who understands the basic laws of equilibrium states from physical chemistry knows that man’s contributions of co2 into the atmosphere CANNOT have an effect on its concentration, any more than you can increase the salt content of a glass of water after it’s become fully saturated at the prevailing conditions of temperature and pressure. You just precipitate out all the salt you add and the water remains at its equilibrium salt concentration no matter how much more salt you add.

Two final points of the 500 I might make if space permitted:
1. Al Gore’s net worth was public knowledge during the political campaign of 2000 — it was approximately $2 million. He is no longer a public servant so his financial affairs are his own private business. However, from investments in public concerns, it is known that he has to have at a minimum a figure upwards of $100 million now. At least a 50-fold increase in 9 years. What has he been doing full time for the past 9 years? Pushing the scam of global warming that’s making him rich. If cap  trade is passed in the US, Gore stands to become a multi-billionaire. He is the indirectly paid propagandist for the eco groups and the corporations who will benefit from that particular means of thieving on the grand scale from the average citizen. Which, I might add, will undoubtedly cause the deaths of at least thousands of elderly from freezing for lack of heat in winter, and of the poor whose diets will be pushed over the line into malnutrition that lowers their immune systems and causes them to succumb to diseases they otherwise would have recovered from (as food prices soar and as disposable incomes of the poor are especially hard hit).

2. For all the untold $billions of taxpayer monies wasted on global warming research, and all the zillions of published papers on the topic, ask the next advocate of this pure junk science that you meet to refer you to a bona fide, peer-reviewed scientific paper in any reputable journal anywhere on earth which has provided evidence of a link between any of man’s activities and atmospheric temperature changes or climate change. That’s not asking for proof, just one tiny but definite piece of evidence. And that’s regarding ANY of man’s myriad activities being damned by the pea-brained warming advocates. And…the evidence can be linked to either climate change of any type or atmospheric temperature change in either direction. He will not be able to offer you even one such paper, because despite the many, many billions wasted on this hoax, NOT ONE paper in any peer-reviewed scientific journal in any nation on earth, NOT ONE, exists or ever has existed which shows even EVIDENCE of a link between ANY of man’s supposedly nefarious activities and climate change. NOT ONE. NOT ANYWHERE. If you don’t believe me, try and find one. You warmers out there reading this, ask the gurus whose received wisdom you place your mindless faith in to provide you with the name and title and publication of such a paper ANYWHERE ON EARTH, and then post it here. And the rest of you, watch this space, because hell will freeze over before you see it. There is no such paper in existence for one reason only: there exists no line (that means NONE) whatsoever between man’s activities and global warming.

The Algorites are the 21st century’s version of the old gloom and doom religious zealots who walked around with signs urging everyone to repent because the world was coming to an end tomorrow. IE, they are lunatics one and all, with mental deficiencies or, in the case of their leaders, character deficiencies (or more accurately, lack of character). This is not a controversial statement. It may be debated by the lunatics themselves, but they won’t do a very good job of it, since they are after all very unintelligent sub-normal humans by definition, being lunatic fringe fanatic religious believers in the global warming religion. Their parents were probably zealots for global freezing in the 1970s, and they have inherited the genes. It is an absolute, inescapable requirement that to believe in a human contribution to global warming in the absence of any shred of evidence for any aspect of it whatsoever other than the arbitrary claim of charlatans that “We have a HYPOTHESIS, and it is confirmed by the computerized models WE put the garbage into, models which you must believe are TRUTH AND WISDOM even though they disagree with each other and continue to produce forecasts that prove wrong, one after the other” — yes you have to be, if you actually choose to believe this, you MUST ABSOLUTELY AND LOGICALLY be either (a) unfortunately quite ignorant of the topic OR (b) an unusually stupid person OR (c) suffering from a severe mental/emotional/psychological problem. These 3 together make up the all-encompassing, exhaustive list of possibilities. There is no 4th option.

I have read many of the posts supporting global warming and if there were time I could demolish every argument in each one. With ease. And with irrefutable fact and/or logic. I have already abused the generosity of this site by writing more than most, however, and it would take 10 times what I’ve written to dispense with all the lame-brained rationalizations the Algorites keep coming up with as each previous one is refuted. I have heard them all and there is not one with an iota of validity. They are arguments designed to sound reasonable to the unintelligent, and conclusive to those ignorant of the topic.
Not one is correct, or even partially correct.

Man-caused global warming a hoax and a fraud and complete garbage. There is no scientific dispute about this, only a political one which has enlisted a few scientists and many pseudo-scientists to join with the politicians and share the same agenda. This is a fraud on a global scale, and those who swallow it will deserve the truly horrible consequences for humanity, dwarfing the largest wars in history, DWARFING THEM, in the horrors of its consequences. Should the lemmings succeed in implementing the politics of the global warmers, unfortunately many of their betters — ie, those with actual HUMAN brains — will also perish, and the culmination of thousands of years of advancing human civilization will be destroyed for absolutely no reason.

You who advocate global warming, do you have any idea what awful harm you will be doing to humanity and life on this planet? How dare you, ignorant as you are, spout off like a scientist when you can’t possibly have any idea of the topic, given the side you take. Look into yourselves. I think if you are capable of being honest with yourself you will find someone who needs something to crusade for so badly in order to shore up his self-esteem, or something to draw away the focus of the hate he has for himself, and for that reason has an EMOTIONAL NEED to believe in this hoax and to have someone to condemn as evil. If you are man enough to admit it, welcome to the club of human beings. If not, you consign yourself to membership amongst the worst enemies of humankind, human life, human civilization: you are a crusading ignoramus, about to add your own 2 cents to the savagery and barbarism recorded history’s litany of human disasters.

Morry Markovitz
on June 16, 2009
at 06:41 AM
Daily Telegraph”

3 thoughts on “Al Gore sued by over 30,000 Scientists for Global Warming fraud”

  1. “Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire or Where Global Warming is Really Coming From”
    Life Extension News Volume 12, No. 1, Feb. 2009

    According to a report in Environment & Climate News,(1) James Hansen, astronomer and director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) has been caught doctoring temperature data from California “to make a long-term cooling trend look like a warming trend.” The article explains that the temperature history (as reported by the U.S. Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) for Santa Rosa, California) was examined by California meteorologist Anthony Watts and found to show a long-term decline, especially since the 1930’s. Watts then examined the temperature history for the same town as reported by GISS; the GISS report was completely different, reporting a long-term increase in Santa Rosa temperature. “USHCN reports a decline of nearly one-half degree Celsius during the twentieth century, while GISS reports a temperature increase of one-half a degree.”(1)

    The article goes on to explain that the USHCN measures temperature by “taking daily readings from an immobile temperature station,” while GISS collects the USHCN temperature readings and then subjects them to adjustments (using methods which Hansen will not reveal), allegedly to correct for artificial influences such as land-use changes. The urban heat island effect (as Santa Rosa’s population increased from slightly more than 10,000 in 1905 to about 158,000 today) would have been expected to result in warmer temperatures (unrelated to global influences) and, hence, to adjust for the urban heat island effect would require the long-term temperature record should be adjusted downward, not upward. Yet, GISS is adjusting the raw temperature data upward instead of downward.

    In the article on the facing page,(2) it described how “[i]n 2007, statistical scientists showed GISS had been artificially inflating U.S. temperatures by 0.15 degrees Celsius since the year 2000.” Furthermore, “[i]n 2008 statistical scientists showed GISS had falsely reported October 2008 was the warmest October on record when, in fact, it was a quite normal temperature month.” NASA later admitted that the “Warmest October” claim had been wrong.(3)


    (1) Taylor JM. GISS, Hansen Caught Doctoring More Data. Environment & Climate News Feb. 2009
    (2) Taylor JM. GISS, Hansen Frequently Report False Warming. Environment & Climate News Feb. 2009
    (3) ‘Warmest October’ Claim Was Wrong, NASA Admits. Environment & Climate News Jan. 2009

  2. Read Ian Plimar’s Heaven and Earth. Its worth every penny.

    I thought my reasoning for being a skeptic was because Elmer Fudd is a global warmer. Then I realized its because I am not a complete f’kn idiot. Lets face it in any case

    “If we reduce CO2 the beer will go flat”!


    The consensus view is that man-made CO2 is causing the lion’s share of global warming. But natural changes in the Sun’s power may be as much to blame.

    There is good evidence that the cause of at least some of global warming is an increase in the intensity of the Sun’s heat. Indeed, global temperatures appear to be more closely related to solar activity, which is constantly changing, than to levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.

    After all, the Earth warmed up more during medieval times than during the 20th century, and it cooled down considerably during the Little Ice Age of the 16th and 17th centuries – without any manmade event that would have affected CO2 output.

    Temperatures also dipped between 1940 and 1975 – a period of intense industrial activity.

    Meanwhile, data from between 1880 and 2000 shows a close correlation between increased solar activity and higher average temperatures on Earth. So couldn’t it be that the Sun is responsible for heating us up after all?


    It has become a key part of the climate change mantra that some of the world’s most beautiful islands are at risk of sinking below the waves, thanks to sea level rises caused by global warming.

    But so confident are property owners in the Maldives that the sea is receding, they are building a flurry of lavish seafront hotels. Meanwhile, Tuvalu in the Pacific – also cited as being most at risk – has actually seen a fall in sea levels.

    The Maldives aren’t sinking: Property owners continue to build lavish hotels


    Today, about 0.038 per cent of the atmosphere consists of carbon dioxide, the main man-made climate change gas. This figure has certainly risen over the past 200 years or so – the ‘pre-industrial’ level of CO2 was closer to 0.02 per cent.

    But what is often ignored is that in the Earth’s past, carbon dioxide levels have often been as much as ten times higher than they are today.

    For example, during the Cretaceous era, when dinosaurs ruled the Earth, CO2 levels were five to ten times what they are today. The planet was certainly warmer then, but life thrived and there was no runaway greenhouse catastrophe of the sort that the doom-mongers insist we face if we let levels rise further. They also, it should be noted, came down again naturally.


    The doom-mongers love showing us images of polar bears in peril, floating on isolated ice rafts. But most populations are doing very well, thank you. Despite the (limited) melting seen in the Arctic ice cap over the past 50 years, polar bear numbers have more than doubled since 1950 – and that’s despite the fact that 50 to 100 bears are now shot every year.

    Indeed, polar bears aren’t bothered by the odd stretch of open water – they are very capable swimmers.

    In fact, it is not even clear that the Arctic ice is melting. The summer of 2008 was the coldest in Anchorage, Alaska, for 40 years.


    And it’s a similar story at the South Pole. Although some Antarctic penguin colonies, especially those near human bases, have decreased in size, overall, penguin numbers are steady or increasing.
    Gentoo penguins

    Penguins are not dying out: Overall numbers are steady or increasing


    Some scientists have warned that if the Arctic ice cap melts, the resulting flood of cold water in the Atlantic could push the Gulf Stream – the warm current which keeps Britain relatively balmy – further south. If this happens, they have made dire predictions that northern Europe could become a frozen wasteland.

    Unfortunately for them, there is no evidence to support this view. In fact, the Gulf Stream is as strong as ever – and is getting warmer, not colder. Nor is it changing direction.


    A warmer climate and an increase in CO2 will be a boon for farming and agriculture in general. One can even envisage returning to the warmer landscape of Roman times, when vineyards were common in England.

    With less severe winters, it will also be possible to grow many crops that, because they are susceptible to the occasional frost, cannot be grown at present.

    Young woman eating hamburger

    No ‘bad’ foods: Hamburgers provide good nutritional value

    Received wisdom, repeated by many doctors and public health professionals, says we can remain fit and avoid disease by cutting out certain ‘bad foods’ from our diets.

    Indeed, it is variously claimed that 35-50 per cent of all cancers are caused by the food we eat.

    But while they are despised by the culinary elite, readily available hamburgers, sausages and pizzas have provided good nutritional value for many low-income families, who in previous days could afford only low-protein, high-carbohydrate, high-fat meals such as bread and dripping, and chip butties.

    In fact, fears about hamburgers and sausages in Britain are especially irrational. Most countries have a national dish based on minced or processed meat – and none is suffering from an epidemic of junk food-inspired illness.

    For example, meatballs are used in many guises in the Middle East, chopped meat on a bed of onions is a national dish in the Balkans, and mince is also used in countless Italian sauces.

    The terrines and pâtés of France and Belgium also contain processed chopped meat. Obesity is not caused by these foods, but by those who choose to gorge on them.

    Studies claiming to show the negative impact of a ‘junk food’ diet usually have little scientific validity.


    A widespread belief has emerged that organic foods are better for you than others because they do not contain ‘chemicals’ used in large- scale conventional farming.

    This dogma is wrong. All plant nutriment comes from the air, in the form of CO2, and from water-soluble chemicals in the soil.

    The composition of these chemicals is the same, whether they come from a plastic bag or from ‘natural’ manure or compost. They are certainly the same by the time they are on your plate.


    Salt is an essential food. Without it, we would die. Land-based mammals-such as humans control their body temperature by sweating and panting.

    Sweating is impossible without sufficient salt. In fact, strenuous exercise in a person depleted of salt causes overheating and death.

    The Government has caved in to the anti-salt zealots in its advice to reduce salt intake. However, there is, in fact, very little, if any, truly scientific evidence that cutting back on it will do you any good.


    The much-disparaged Turkey Twizzler, bugbear of TV chef Jamie Oliver, is made of recovered turkey meat and provides the same amino acids as normal turkey breast.

    Corned beef, now an unfashionable meat product, is also no less nutritious than any other beef, although, like Turkey Twizzlers, it is also a reclaimed meat product.
    Bernard Matthews’ Turkey Twizzlers frozen foods.

    Turkey Twizzlers are fine: The recovered meat provides the same amino acids as regular turkey breast meat


    The medical (and social) consensus is that cardiovascular disease is caused by being overweight, by having a high-fat, high-cholesterol diet and by unhealthy activities such as smoking.

    While being morbidly obese, eating nothing but lard and smoking 60 a day will probably lead to an early grave, there is nevertheless a lot of confusion about the precise link between lifestyle and this, the biggest killer of all.

    Many people with high cholesterol levels in their blood do not get heart disease. Many people with very low levels do.

    The very low levels of heart disease recorded in some populations, notably the Japanese, may have more to do with cultural variation and prejudice than with medical reality (in many societies, what are, in fact, heart attacks are often listed on death certificates as ‘strokes’).

    Furthermore, some of the lowest levels of cholesterol and arterial sclerosis are to be found in populations such as the Inuit and Siberian hunter-gatherers, who live on a diet which is incredibly high in saturated fat.


    Everything seems to be bad for you these days, but there is also plenty of scientific evidence to the contrary.

    Eggs seldom contain salmonella, even if some chickens do. Cholesterol in the diet does not cause fatty deposits in your arteries. There is probably little difference between the effect of saturated and unsaturated fats.

    In those with normal kidney function, salt does not cause high blood pressure. Those with a body-mass index of between 25 and 32 live as long as or longer than those with a lower BMI. And avoiding the sun causes vitamin D deficiency; a suntan is nature’s natural sun block, although sunburn is to be avoided.


    Anti-mercury campaigners believe that the mercury used in dental fillings will make you ill (mercury is a potent poison).

    But a single amalgam filling provides just 0.03 micrograms/day of mercury, which is almost 3,000 times less than the safety level permitted for persons with occupational exposure to mercury, and is too small to be responsible for any symptoms.

    Extracted from Global Warming And Other Bollocks: The Truth About All Those Science Scare Stories by Professor Stanley Feldman and Professor Vincent Marks, to be published by Metro on July 8 at £9.99 © 2009 Stanley Feldman and Vincent Marks. To order a copy (p&p free) call 0845 155 0720.

Comments are closed.