Is Global Warming a Leftist Urban Legend?

[waldo]

That "price" is already factored in...we already know that. Nobody should expect otherwise....now it's time for the scheming "climatologists" to admit the same thing.

bush_cheney, I'm quite worried that all this climaty stuff has co-opted the abilities of your mighty Intelligencia & Make War Dept... dammit, just where the hell are things headed when they all engage in this nonsensical strategic planning related to climate change’s impact on military operations and security. The Great Satan has no time... no need... to embrace this climaty stuff - doesn't anyone in authority read the British tabloids!!! Doesn't anyone follow Shady's indepth analysis?

my gawd, this affects us all - as goes the U.S. so goes the rest of us following in your wake... I believe that's what you've been trying to convey all these years, right? C'mon... bush_cheney... can you pleeeeese bring this forward at your next tea-party - this can't be allowed to carry forward.

just how could this ever happen??? Those, as you say, "scheming climatologists", must be uber clever to have so hood-winked your Defense Department and the U.S. Intelligence Community... it wouldn't surprise me if those Ruskies are behind it all - cold war blow-back... it's a beeatch!

I've posted previously about the recent U.S. Defense Departments "Quadrennial Defense Review" (re: it's authoring of a "Strategic Approach to Climate and Energy")... fresh off of that silliness, we now have the just released Annual Threat Assessment given to the U.S. Senate by the Director of National Intelligence... where we're confronted with this nonsensical position:

We continue to assess that global climate change will have wide-ranging implications for US national security interests over the next 20 years because it will aggravate existing world problems—such as poverty, social tensions, environmental degradation, ineffectual leadership, and weak political institutions—that threaten state stability. (In my classified statement, I discuss the recent UN-sponsored climate change conference in Copenhagen.) Climate change alone is highly unlikely to trigger failure in any state out to 2030, but it will potentially contribute to intra- or, less likely, interstate conflict. Water issues, which have existed before the recent changes in the climate, will continue to be major concern. As climate changes spur more humanitarian emergencies, the demand may significantly tax US military transportation and support force structures, resulting in a strained readiness posture and decreased strategic depth for combat operations. Some recent climate science would indicate that the effects of climate change are accelerating, particularly in the Arctic region and on mountain glaciers that impact critical watersheds

bush_cheney, make it stop! Please... save us one, save us all!!!

bush_cheney... it's got it all! Flag waving, support the troops, energy independence, national security... patriotism!!! Climate patriots - denying is... treasonous, bush_cheney - treasonous!

threat multiplier... enabling terrorism/terrorists!!! Damnit, bush_cheney... make it stop! Please... save us one, save us all

[KeyStone]

I'm not a scientist. I don't understand it. Therefore, I have to rely on others to make a semi-informed decision as to whether I think it is real or not.

The vast majority of scientists believe it is real, particularly those that study climate change.

Yes, there are exceptions.

There have been petitions signed by thousands of scientists, that upon closer examination reveal that the only qualifier to be a scientist was a degree in science, and that the list was dominated by petroleum geologists, and those working for big oil.

You also need to realize that scientists are going to base their decision on two things:

- What they perceive to be the truth

- What gets them money

If you have ten thousand scientists saying global warming is real, and a lot of big oil companies hoping to put up a counter argument, it's pretty much certain that someone with a degree will step up to champion whatever belief the oil companies want.

[Michael Hardner]

I'm not a scientist. I don't understand it. Therefore, I have to rely on others to make a semi-informed decision as to whether I think it is real or not.

The vast majority of scientists believe it is real, particularly those that study climate change.

Yes, there are exceptions.

There have been petitions signed by thousands of scientists, that upon closer examination reveal that the only qualifier to be a scientist was a degree in science, and that the list was dominated by petroleum geologists, and those working for big oil.

You also need to realize that scientists are going to base their decision on two things:

- What they perceive to be the truth

- What gets them money

If you have ten thousand scientists saying global warming is real, and a lot of big oil companies hoping to put up a counter argument, it's pretty much certain that someone with a degree will step up to champion whatever belief the oil companies want.

Also, the skeptical scientist believe global warming to be real, by and large, and believe CO2 to be a cause, by and large, but also believe other factors are important.

[scribblet]

Maybe it's time to put Al Gore on the stand to defend his scam (follow the money).

There is no consensus, and in light of climategate etc. etc. etc. It's time to revisit the data while also examining the opposing theories instead of calling skeptics names. I believe there is climate change but not wholly man made, it's a natural cycle of the earth, earth will always change, we should be preparing for the next ice age -

[wyly]

He was a professor who specialized in invertebrate zoology - if you have any clue - someone who specailizes in a particular form of zoology likely has a background in biological structures - for example someone who knows about invertebrates has a very good chance of knowing about vertebrates.

and no chance of knowing anything about archeology...his expertise sea urchins and starfish, definitely not archeology

The guy spent decades on the field.. and at sites around the world.

he found what he wanted to find and interpreted everything he found to meet his personal belief, you can spend a lifetime in the field unless you're trained in the required techniques you will not understand what you're looking at...he wasn't objective...

He also liaised as stated with specialists, he was not a one man show and communicated and transfered materials and sought expert advice around the world.

"Of all the professional archeologists and linguists at Harvard and other places who were contacted for their opinion of Fell's theories, not one took him seriously, except to lament the damage they felt he was inflicting on legitimate archeological inquiry. Fell himself claims that there are experts in many European universities and museums who do believe in his work. But the American experts contacted did not recognize a single name that Fell listed. People that are described as archeologists in America B.C. and in magazine articles about Fell's work were not known to archeologists at Harvard. On investigation, they turned out for the most part to be amateurs."

I think that you underestimate the time he spent in the field conducting research, and the time he spent writing books on the subject matter.

garbage in, garbage out...he makes it up as he goes...and just like von Daniken has a racists bias, that American natives were stupid and could not have independently come up with their own writing or technological advances, those could only come from Europeans or aliens...

Read the book and tell me what isn't valid or is false information. Or maybe your dablings in archeology maybe leave you not being able to tell if his statements are accurate or not.

dabbling, a few credits short of a degree is hardly darlings...my daughter assures me I'm very good considering I have an unfinished degree...

Material evidence is material evidence. That is what he uses, it isn't made up it is material evidence. Established facts strung together to make a valid explanation for events that happened a thousand to four thousand years ago.

he's used faked evidence, and interpreted things as he wished, he has no expertise in linguistics but apparently knows more about linguistics than linguists...

"In several places in America B.C. Fell writes of "bronze" weapons that were supposedly imported from the Old World in ancient times. However, Harvard archeologists Stephen Williams, Jeffrey Brain, and Michael Roberts all say that Fell's "bronze" weapons are actually American copper of native origin. Brain says laboratory tests at MIT established that fact, and he adds that no bronze objects of ancient origin have ever been found in North America."

the big killer to his wild hypothesis...DNA...for all the supposed European contact in N America there is no DNA trace to those time periods as there would have to be, none..DNA doesn't lie...of course Fell couldn't have known this as DNA had not made it's impact when he wrote his book in 1976...

here is the link to quotes above (that you use to backup his credibility) from Harvard(1977) and whatthey think of Fell's work...

[wyly]

Also, the skeptical scientist believe global warming to be real, by and large, and believe CO2 to be a cause, by and large, but also believe other factors are important.

yup...and the change of tune among political leaders is subtle, not wanting to annoy their denier following they now accept Climate Change as real but avoid discussing the causes instead calling for an enviromental clean up and avoid any mention of AGW...

[Michael Hardner]

There is no consensus, and in light of climategate etc. etc. etc. It's time to revisit the data while also examining the opposing theories instead of calling skeptics names. I believe there is climate change but not wholly man made, it's a natural cycle of the earth, earth will always change, we should be preparing for the next ice age -

There is a strong consensus - hundreds of papers that agree that human activity is contributing substantially to global warming. They have examined natural cycles, and determined that CO2 is likely causing the warming.

[Wild Bill]

I'm not a scientist. I don't understand it. Therefore, I have to rely on others to make a semi-informed decision as to whether I think it is real or not.

The vast majority of scientists believe it is real, particularly those that study climate change.

Yes, there are exceptions.

There have been petitions signed by thousands of scientists, that upon closer examination reveal that the only qualifier to be a scientist was a degree in science, and that the list was dominated by petroleum geologists, and those working for big oil.

You also need to realize that scientists are going to base their decision on two things:

- What they perceive to be the truth

- What gets them money

If you have ten thousand scientists saying global warming is real, and a lot of big oil companies hoping to put up a counter argument, it's pretty much certain that someone with a degree will step up to champion whatever belief the oil companies want.

Actually, your scenario leaves out a big segment. There are many scientists working under grants controlled by political channels who have no choice but to appear to agree with climate change if they want to continue to be able to feed their kids!

So there are biases on BOTH sides of the argument!

Me, I tend to put my faith in character. Being a techie by trade, when I hear someone shout "Anyone who disagrees should be thrown in jail!" (David Suzuki) or "The science is settled! There's no need to listen to anyone who disagrees anymore!" that's when I smell a con job! That sort of thinking has nothing to do with science and everything to do with propaganda. While that doesn't mean there couldn't still be some truth to their argument it DOES mean that I have to consider it a very biased source.

Hell, just follow the threads here on MLW! See how people who disagree with climate change are labelled "deniers" and called all sorts of names, denigrated to look stupid or worse yet, corrupted somehow by "Big Oil". Again, such tactics go to character. I see them as even more reason to distrust their source.

[wyly]

Actually, your scenario leaves out a big segment. There are many scientists working under grants controlled by political channels who have no choice but to appear to agree with climate change if they want to continue to be able to feed their kids!

So there are biases on BOTH sides of the argument!

I know some of those scientists and they were on the payroll before CC became the issue is it today, their findings are not dependent on what side of the research they come down on...in fact by your logic since they work for the Federal government the political channel is Conservative it's a wonder they have job since the conservatives deny CC.. how is it they still have jobs and can feed their kids?

Me, I tend to put my faith in character. Being a techie by trade, when I hear someone shout "Anyone who disagrees should be thrown in jail!" (David Suzuki) or "The science is settled! There's no need to listen to anyone who disagrees anymore!" that's when I smell a con job! That sort of thinking has nothing to do with science and everything to do with propaganda. While that doesn't mean there couldn't still be some truth to their argument it DOES mean that I have to consider it a very biased source.

it's like denying the holocaust, deniers are needlessly stirring the pot out of irrational ignorance and political bias/motive causing a delay of action that could cause irreparable harm...

Hell, just follow the threads here on MLW! See how people who disagree with climate change are labelled "deniers" and called all sorts of names, denigrated to look stupid or worse yet, corrupted somehow by "Big Oil". Again, such tactics go to character. I see them as even more reason to distrust their source.

if we labeled the "deniers" and called them what they really are, the forum mods would send us nasty emails Edited February 23, 2010 by wyly

[scribblet]

Labelling people deniers is a good ploy, it's intent is to denigrate and to put them on a par with holocaust deniers.

There is no consensus and there are many skeptics,even more now as the data is flawed as prominent scientists have recently recanted their initial belief in man made global warming. The earth has always cycled always will, there were no men around when the earth warmed before. This is not so say we should keep on polluting, we definitely should clean up our act, but we sure should uncover the real inconvenient truth - and the money behind the warmist's hysteria.,

http://article.nationalreview.com/355149/dont-deny-yourself/interview

[wyly]

Labelling people deniers is a good ploy, it's intent is to denigrate and to put them on a par with holocaust deniers.

denial in the face of overwhelming evidence, yes they are the same...

There is no consensus and there are many skeptics,even more now as the data is flawed as prominent scientists have recently recanted their initial belief in man made global warming.

sorry that's wishful thinking(denial)on your part, nothing has changed...the consensus is overwhelming, CC is a result of AGW/CO2...visiting your daily quota of denier blog sites to reaffirm your convictions doesn't make the truth disappear

The earth has always cycled always will

Milankovitch cycles do not work this fast...

there were no men around when the earth warmed before.

man his lived through warming's and cooling's before....

This is not so say we should keep on polluting, we definitely should clean up our act, but we sure should uncover the real inconvenient truth - and the money behind the warmist's hysteria.,

sssh don't say or even think AGW let's just call it pollution and natural to avoid being wrong...where was the money 100+ years ago when AGW and Green house effect were first brought forward, that's some conspiracy....but we do know where the money behind the denier world comes from...

[William Ashley]

and no chance of knowing anything about archeology...his expertise sea urchins and starfish, definitely not archeology

If you spend 30 years researching a topic - any topic - chances are you will "hone in" on the subject matter.

he found what he wanted to find and interpreted everything he found to meet his personal belief,

Not true - he changed his stances on a couple different things when he encountered new evidence.

you can spend a lifetime in the field unless you're trained in the required techniques you will not understand what you're looking at...he wasn't objective...

When you spend the time with other professors of arhcaeology and linguistics chances are what you guys are doing maybe has some insight.

"Of all the professional archeologists and linguists at Harvard and other places who were contacted for their opinion of Fell's theories, not one took him seriously, except to lament the damage they felt he was inflicting on legitimate archeological inquiry. Fell himself claims that there are experts in many European universities and museums who do believe in his work. But the American experts contacted did not recognize a single name that Fell listed. People that are described as archeologists in America B.C. and in magazine articles about Fell's work were not known to archeologists at Harvard. On investigation, they turned out for the most part to be amateurs."

Untrue, he worked with professors both in California and in Europe that are very much accredited professors.

garbage in, garbage out...he makes it up as he goes...and just like von Daniken has a racists bias, that American natives were stupid and could not have independently come up with their own writing or technological advances, those could only come from Europeans or aliens...

Until you read the book and actually critize the evidence in it then you are the only uneducated person here. America B.C. is not bronze age america. Bronze Age America came AFTER this. Also this was before Vikings in America were an accepted fact. In this US this is still contraversial because of Columbus Day and the notion that Christopher Columbus was the first European to discover America, a lie still perpetuated in American history Classes.

dabbling, a few credits short of a degree is hardly darlings...my daughter assures me I'm very good considering I have an unfinished degree...

I've taken anthropology and archeology courses in university also. What is your point?

he's used faked evidence

Such as?

, and interpreted things as he wished, he has no expertise in linguistics but apparently knows more about linguistics than linguists...

He was an expert in Ogam, he was ground breaking - and once again a fact that now is more accepted, and a mystery left behind - he was against the mainstream of the time but a number of his controversial facts then are now accepted.

"In several places in America B.C.

Why do you keep on referencing this, something you looked up online and reposted. BRONZE AGE AMERICA IS NOT AMERICA BC!!! It is a totally different book that was written after America B.C.

Fell writes of "bronze" weapons that were supposedly imported from the Old World in ancient times. However, Harvard archeologists Stephen Williams, Jeffrey Brain, and Michael Roberts all say that Fell's "bronze" weapons are actually American copper of native origin. Brain says laboratory tests at MIT established that fact, and he adds that no bronze objects of ancient origin have ever been found in North America."

This wouldn't rule out that they are ancient copper weapons if there was a copper trade ongoing. The statement you just quote contradicts itself - it says 1. The objects are "native copper" and 2. no copper objects were found - a paradox.

the big killer to his wild hypothesis...DNA...for all the supposed European contact in N America there is no DNA trace to those time periods as there would have to be, none..DNA doesn't lie...of course Fell couldn't have known this as DNA had not made it's impact when he wrote his book in 1976...

Actually there is plenty of DNA... mentioned from his books, all that needs to be done is to test it.

here is the link to quotes above (that you use to backup his credibility) from Harvard(1977) and whatthey think of Fell's work...

Quoting an attack on America B.C. has nothing to do with BRONZE AGE AMERICA - a book written after America BC.

BTW here is another web article to look at:

http://www.viewzone.com/ogam.html

Edited February 24, 2010 by William Ashley

[Michael Hardner]

Actually, your scenario leaves out a big segment. There are many scientists working under grants controlled by political channels who have no choice but to appear to agree with climate change if they want to continue to be able to feed their kids!

This is hard to defend against - basically a conspiracy theory type argument, as in "they're too intimidated to tell the truth". Certainly, if that were the case you would expect more of a leak than what we have seen ? Even the Climategate emails didn't provide anything like 'smoking gun' proof of a conspiracy like that.

[Michael Hardner]

denial in the face of overwhelming evidence, yes they are the same...

It's not at all the same. There's plausible amount of doubt in the minds of a handful of scientists about AGW. Scientists have consensus that AGW is real, but they will never have absolute proof.

The Holocaust is a fact, and those who knowingly deny it do so in order to engender racist beliefs.

[Michael Hardner]

When you spend the time with other professors of arhcaeology and linguistics chances are what you guys are doing maybe has some insight.

This strikes me as thread drift...

[Bonam]

it's like denying the holocaust, deniers are needlessly stirring the pot out of irrational ignorance and political bias/motive causing a delay of action that could cause irreparable harm...

Please do not equate denying climate change with denying the Holocaust. The Holocaust is a historical event and its occurrence is indisputable fact, there are thousands of people alive today who witnessed it first hand and millions of others who feel its effects to this day.

Climate change, on the other hand, is a scientific theory, which I believe to be very well grounded in the evidence, but it is not in any way comparable to the Holocaust. Denying the Holocaust is spitting on the graves of six million people, denying climate change is disagreeing with a theory.

[wyly]

It's not at all the same. There's plausible amount of doubt in the minds of a handful of scientists about AGW. Scientists have consensus that AGW is real, but they will never have absolute proof.

the proof of AGW is absolute...CO2 is a GHG, absolutely undeniable...change the proportions of any mixture be it solid, liquid or gas and you change the properties of that mixture, that is an absolute...increase a GHG(CO2) to the atmosphere and it must retain more IR...

The Holocaust is a fact, and those who knowingly deny it do so in order to engender racist beliefs.

and there are a handful of historians that claim the holocaust never happened either...so what does that tell you...if the face of undeniable fact there are deniers who will always claim otherwise like the 20% of americans who still think the sun orbits the earth, logic or reason plays no part their lives...

[wyly]

Please do not equate denying climate change with denying the Holocaust. The Holocaust is a historical event and its occurrence is indisputable fact, there are thousands of people alive today who witnessed it first hand and millions of others who feel its effects to this day.

climate change is an historical event and it's occurances is indisputable fact there are billions of people alive today who witness is first hand and everyone will feel it's effects for centuries...

Climate change, on the other hand, is a scientific theory, which I believe to be very well grounded in the evidence, but it is not in any way comparable to the Holocaust. Denying the Holocaust is spitting on the graves of six million people, denying climate change is disagreeing with a theory.

but it's ok for you to spit on the graves of the other 6 million none jews who died in those same camps by omitting their suffering?

[wyly]

This strikes me as thread drift...

not as much you think, challenging the legitimacy of viking myths as to climate change...

[Bonam]

climate change is an historical event and it's occurances is indisputable fact there are billions of people alive today who witness is first hand and everyone will feel it's effects for centuries...

Clearly many people are not convinced that they are witnessing anything first hand. In fact, unlike being exterminated, climate change is very hard to notice for an individual unless that person specifically sets out to collect extensive data sets. As for feeling its effects for centuries, I have confidence that we will have the capacity to precisely control the Earth's climate long before then. In a sense, what we do about climate change today will have little impact, because the best we can do is reduce our emissions to some extent, whereas in the future we will have much more powerful tools at our disposal.

but it's ok for you to spit on the graves of the other 6 million none jews who died in those same camps by omitting their suffering?

The term "Holocaust" as I have most commonly seen it used refers specifically to the Nazi program of exterminating Jews. Their crimes against other peoples are of course also atrocious, but you specifically brought up the Holocaust (unwisely, in a thread about global warming).

[waldo]

a label is a label is a label - to deny climate change purely on the basis of outdated or irrelevant references, is denial... those that do so are in denial, they are deniers. There are those that use the alternate label 'contrarian', but that usage has somewhat fallen out of favour since it doesn't allow distinction between true skeptics and deniers.

it's been stated previously in other MLW climate change threads: if one is in denial, and if someone points it out and you think that puts you in bad company, that's your own affair.

[wyly]

The term "Holocaust" as I have most commonly seen it used refers specifically to the Nazi program of exterminating Jews. Their crimes against other peoples are of course also atrocious, but you specifically brought up the Holocaust (unwisely, in a thread about global warming).

too bad so sad for being politically correct drama queen, I don't care...the analogy stands, illogical denial in face of overwhelming evidence = deniers...

[wyly]

If you spend 30 years researching a topic - any topic - chances are you will "hone in" on the subject matter.

apparently not in Fells case...

Not true - he changed his stances on a couple different things when he encountered new evidence.

When you spend the time with other professors of arhcaeology and linguistics chances are what you guys are doing maybe has some insight.

Untrue, he worked with professors both in California and in Europe that are very much accredited professors.

you established his credentials as HARVARD PROF, I posted a link to a Harvard site where Harvard Archeologists repudiated him as an amateur...

Until you read the book and actually critize the evidence in it then you are the only uneducated person here.

fiction doesn't count as knowledge...if I read a book on Archeology it'll be written by an Archeologist not a marine biologist with a specialty in sea urchins...I might as well read a comic book...

America B.C. is not bronze age america. Bronze Age America came AFTER this. Also this was before Vikings in America were an accepted fact. In this US this is still contraversial because of Columbus Day and the notion that Christopher Columbus was the first European to discover America, a lie still perpetuated in American history Classes.

just where did you go to school? I was taught Vikings settled in Canada in the 60's and you believe it wasn't established fact until after Fell wrote his book in the 80's? and you learned this in a University archeology class?

I've taken anthropology and archeology courses in university also. What is your point?

I took electives too that doesn't mean I know anything about Astronomy...and as you believed Vikings in N America weren't an established fact until the 80's your knowledge is very questionable...

Such as?

he translated faked carvings...proving that he saw what he wanted to see...

He was an expert in Ogam, he was ground breaking - and once again a fact that now is more accepted, and a mystery left behind - he was against the mainstream of the time but a number of his controversial facts then are now accepted.

none, he's an scorned in archeology and he has no training in lingustics...he interprets scratches in stone any way he wants, I guess those dumb injuns were too stupid to make their own scratches they needed superior euro celts to do it for them...

Why do you keep on referencing this, something you looked up online and reposted. BRONZE AGE AMERICA IS NOT AMERICA BC!!! It is a totally different book that was written after America B.C.

are you saying one book is idiotic and the other is genius?...sorry , dumb and dumber his lack of knowledge is there for all to see...

This wouldn't rule out that they are ancient copper weapons if there was a copper trade ongoing. The statement you just quote contradicts itself - it says 1. The objects are "native copper" and 2. no copper objects were found - a paradox.

wrong..."Native copper implements are particularly common on sites in proximity to the copper sources of Lake Superior"

Actually there is plenty of DNA... mentioned from his books, all that needs to be done is to test it.

you have no idea...DNA ancestry tracing wasn't available in his day, it is now...there no european DNA introduced into native populations at the time he claims, NONE...DNA doesn't lie and it can't be hidden...

Quoting an attack on America B.C. has nothing to do with BRONZE AGE AMERICA - a book written after America BC.

same guy, same BS...

BTW here is another web article to look at:http://www.viewzone.com/ogam.html

the article is about an Engineer who thinks he's an archeologist, do have an issue with real archeologists, does what they have to say not agree with Fish Doctors and Engineers?

impressive site let's look the other topics covered... LBJ Killed JFK! Mossad Link Found to One of Key 9-11 Hijackers, Evidence that AIDS was man-made. Fake Gold in Fort Knox! 73,846 US Iraq War Soldiers Dead ....this site doesn't do much for your credibility ...loonies...

this is the last my last response to this we're getting too far from the OP...and Michael H is getting annoyed..

Edited February 24, 2010 by wyly

[scribblet]

Please do not equate denying climate change with denying the Holocaust. The Holocaust is a historical event and its occurrence is indisputable fact, there are thousands of people alive today who witnessed it first hand and millions of others who feel its effects to this day.

Climate change, on the other hand, is a scientific theory, which I believe to be very well grounded in the evidence, but it is not in any way comparable to the Holocaust. Denying the Holocaust is spitting on the graves of six million people, denying climate change is disagreeing with a theory.

I don't equate the two, but the term 'deniers' is out there and used because the holocaust is usually the first thing people think of when they hear that term. It's optics and perception which is working.

We might ask Al Gore why he is lying low these days

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/al_gore_is_lying_low_for_good.html

Maybe Al Gore's been advised by legal counsel to lie low. He may be the leader of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) movement, but he's not defending it in public, not even when it's falling apart and his new fortune is based upon it.

Mr. Gore and his financial backers earned millions of dollars in start-up "green" companies and carbon trading schemes. If the scam worked, he could've become the first "carbon billionaire."

"What goes up can fall down" applies to ill-gotten gains in the stock market or "carbon trading" schemes. In such schemes, it's foreseeable that trusting investors will (a) not only get hurt when the scam collapses, but they'll also pursue legal remedies and sue him for fraud.

Mr. Gore's financial gains were based on the contradictory and error-plagued assertion that man's release of the trace gas CO2 will fry the planet.

Once it becomes clear to everyone that the AGW theory is based on cleverly manipulated data twisted by rigged computer models controlled by several dozen IPCC politicians/scientists, we can expect that investors who lose millions by investing in these companies will eventually haul Mr. Gore and the insider IPCC scientists into court.

Over the years, American tax dollars were poured down the fantasyland AGW "rat hole." Sooner or later, Al Gore needs to answer some hard questions. Unfortunately, we'll have to wait for lawsuits from private investors. Today, legal counsel will advise him to remain silent.

It's impossible to predict how many lawsuits, or what kind, might arise once everyone realizes that the AGW scam dwarfs Bernie Madoff's $50-billion Ponzi operation. New studies appear almost daily that further undercut AGW theory. The biggest daily newspaper in the Netherlands vindicated that country's leading AGW critic in the article "Henk Tennekes -- He was right after all."

-snip-

Obviously, Al Gore cannot be compelled to answer questions in a criminal court under the 5th Amendment. However, his admissible bank and stock portfolio records would prove his skyrocketing wealth, making him a "deep pocket."

Edited February 24, 2010 by scriblett

[Alta4ever]

Just a reminder http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=15552&view=findpost&p=492377