Yes, let's prosecute climate change fruad

[KLATTU]

If propounding pseudoscience in pursuit of self-serving goals is a crime, here are some hardened offenders.



So if Harris and Schneiderman are up for suing people who’ve made piles of cash peddling exaggerations and distortions, let’s roll out some test cases. I’ve got three ideas: United States v. Al Gore. Ten years ago, the former vice president of the United States launched an extraordinarily lucrative career by selling climate doomsday. While promoting his Oscar-winning documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, he made a shockingly false statement. He said that unless the world took “drastic measures” to reduce greenhouse gases, it would reach a “point of no return” in ten years. RELATED: Apocalypse Delayed Ten years have passed. Is there a scientific consensus that the wor
Ten years have passed. Is there a scientific consensus that the world has reached a “point of no return?” No? Gore’s documentary grossed almost $50 million worldwide. I’d suggest that number as a starting point for damages. But of course you’ll need to subpoena all his business records and communications. We wouldn’t want him hiding his ill-gotten gains, and goodness knows that public schools could use some cash.

Read more at: Climate-Change Prosecution: Liberals Should Be Liable

 

[Casper]

If propounding pseudoscience in pursuit of self-serving goals is a crime, here are some hardened offenders.



So if Harris and Schneiderman are up for suing people who’ve made piles of cash peddling exaggerations and distortions, let’s roll out some test cases. I’ve got three ideas: United States v. Al Gore. Ten years ago, the former vice president of the United States launched an extraordinarily lucrative career by selling climate doomsday. While promoting his Oscar-winning documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, he made a shockingly false statement. He said that unless the world took “drastic measures” to reduce greenhouse gases, it would reach a “point of no return” in ten years. RELATED: Apocalypse Delayed Ten years have passed. Is there a scientific consensus that the wor
Ten years have passed. Is there a scientific consensus that the world has reached a “point of no return?” No? Gore’s documentary grossed almost $50 million worldwide. I’d suggest that number as a starting point for damages. But of course you’ll need to subpoena all his business records and communications. We wouldn’t want him hiding his ill-gotten gains, and goodness knows that public schools could use some cash.

Read more at: Climate-Change Prosecution: Liberals Should Be Liable

Be careful what you wish for, in a court of law one would have to prove that Climate Change is a Hoax and if you fail the shoe would be on the other foot.

 

[KLATTU]

Be careful what you wish for, in a court of law one would have to prove that Climate Change is a Hoax and if you fail the shoe would be on the other foot.

Not at all .


Gore's already been taken to court in the UK and gotten his jowls slapped.

 

[longview]

Not at all .


Gore's already been taken to court in the UK and gotten his jowls slapped.

Mann and Steyn, are currently in a case, and it is the alarmist Mann who keeps seeking delays.

 

[Casper]

Not at all .


Gore's already been taken to court in the UK and gotten his jowls slapped.

If you are feeling lucky by all means go for it, just don't say you were not warned.

 

[Manc Skipper]

If propounding pseudoscience in pursuit of self-serving goals is a crime, here are some hardened offenders.



So if Harris and Schneiderman are up for suing people who’ve made piles of cash peddling exaggerations and distortions, let’s roll out some test cases. I’ve got three ideas: United States v. Al Gore. Ten years ago, the former vice president of the United States launched an extraordinarily lucrative career by selling climate doomsday. While promoting his Oscar-winning documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, he made a shockingly false statement. He said that unless the world took “drastic measures” to reduce greenhouse gases, it would reach a “point of no return” in ten years. RELATED: Apocalypse Delayed Ten years have passed. Is there a scientific consensus that the wor
Ten years have passed. Is there a scientific consensus that the world has reached a “point of no return?” No? Gore’s documentary grossed almost $50 million worldwide. I’d suggest that number as a starting point for damages. But of course you’ll need to subpoena all his business records and communications. We wouldn’t want him hiding his ill-gotten gains, and goodness knows that public schools could use some cash.

Read more at: Climate-Change Prosecution: Liberals Should Be Liable

The movie has been through the court. Deniers tried to block it being shown in schools. It was found to be largely accurate with 3 minor errors of scale, rather than fact. They lost, and the film was shown in schools across the country.

 

[KLATTU]

The movie has been through the court. Deniers tried to block it being shown in schools. It was found to be largely accurate with 3 minor errors of scale, rather than fact. They lost, and the film was shown in schools across the country.

Thankfully, Al Gore invented the internet so we could all call people like you on your BS.
The judge ruled that the film can still be shown in schools, as part of a climate change resources pack, but only if it is accompanied by fresh guidance notes to balance Mr Gore's "one-sided" views. The "apocalyptic vision" presented in the film was not an impartial analysis of the science of climate change, he said

· The film claimed that low-lying inhabited Pacific atolls "are being inundated because of anthropogenic global warming" - but there was no evidence of any evacuation occurring

· It spoke of global warming "shutting down the ocean conveyor" - the process by which the gulf stream is carried over the north Atlantic to western Europe. The judge said that, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, it was "very unlikely" that the conveyor would shut down in the future, though it might slow down

· Mr Gore had also claimed - by ridiculing the opposite view - that two graphs, one plotting a rise in C02 and the other the rise in temperature over a period of 650,000 years, showed "an exact fit". The judge said although scientists agreed there was a connection, "the two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts"

· Mr Gore said the disappearance of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro was expressly attributable to human-induced climate change. The judge said the consensus was that that could not be established

· The drying up of Lake Chad was used as an example of global warming. The judge said: "It is apparently considered to be more likely to result from ... population increase, over-grazing and regional climate variability"

· Mr Gore ascribed Hurricane Katrina to global warming, but there was "insufficient evidence to show that"

· Mr Gore also referred to a study showing that polar bears were being found that had drowned "swimming long distances to find the ice". The judge said: "The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm"
Gore's climate film has scientific errors - judge | Environment | The Guardian
..and remember this came from a very pro-warmist court.The UK is way more infected with liberals than the US.

· The film said that coral reefs all over the world were bleaching because of global warming and other factors. The judge said separating the impacts of stresses due to climate change from other stresses, such as over-fishing, and pollution, was difficult

· The film said a sea-level rise of up to 20ft would be caused by melting of either west Antarctica or Greenland in the near future; the judge ruled that this was "distinctly alarmist"

 

[polgara]

Thankfully, Al Gore invented the internet so we could all call people like you on your BS.
The judge ruled that the film can still be shown in schools, as part of a climate change resources pack, but only if it is accompanied by fresh guidance notes to balance Mr Gore's "one-sided" views. The "apocalyptic vision" presented in the film was not an impartial analysis of the science of climate change, he said

· The film claimed that low-lying inhabited Pacific atolls "are being inundated because of anthropogenic global warming" - but there was no evidence of any evacuation occurring

· It spoke of global warming "shutting down the ocean conveyor" - the process by which the gulf stream is carried over the north Atlantic to western Europe. The judge said that, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, it was "very unlikely" that the conveyor would shut down in the future, though it might slow down

· Mr Gore had also claimed - by ridiculing the opposite view - that two graphs, one plotting a rise in C02 and the other the rise in temperature over a period of 650,000 years, showed "an exact fit". The judge said although scientists agreed there was a connection, "the two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts"

· Mr Gore said the disappearance of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro was expressly attributable to human-induced climate change. The judge said the consensus was that that could not be established

· The drying up of Lake Chad was used as an example of global warming. The judge said: "It is apparently considered to be more likely to result from ... population increase, over-grazing and regional climate variability"

· Mr Gore ascribed Hurricane Katrina to global warming, but there was "insufficient evidence to show that"

· Mr Gore also referred to a study showing that polar bears were being found that had drowned "swimming long distances to find the ice". The judge said: "The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm"
Gore's climate film has scientific errors - judge | Environment | The Guardian
..and remember this came from a very pro-warmist court.The UK is way more infected with liberals than the US.

· The film said that coral reefs all over the world were bleaching because of global warming and other factors. The judge said separating the impacts of stresses due to climate change from other stresses, such as over-fishing, and pollution, was difficult

· The film said a sea-level rise of up to 20ft would be caused by melting of either west Antarctica or Greenland in the near future; the judge ruled that this was "distinctly alarmist"

Greetings, KLATTU. :2wave:

Excellent! We need to see more posts like this one! :thumbs:

 

[Manc Skipper]

Al Gore is traditionally vilified in order to negatively obfuscate the debate, as above. Personal attacks on him shift the debate away from climate science for which he has no responsibility, claim, or blame.
I stand corrected. There were actually no points in the movie found to be in "error", political overemphases were simply corrected by inclusions in the programme notes. The judge nonetheless found the movie "broadly accurate".

 

[LowDown]

Mann and Steyn, are currently in a case, and it is the alarmist Mann who keeps seeking delays.

I appears that Mann doesn't want to have to submit to discovery. He made those claims and then refused to show anyone his methods. If the day ever comes when he is finally forced to release that it ought to be interesting. As it is, he's attempting to beat Steyn by attrition through repeated delays.

It doesn't much matter anymore, though. Mann has no support for his case in the scientific community at all. Not one organization or individual submitted a brief in his favor for his case. Dozens of briefs have been filed against him, though, mostly because his efforts are seen as a threat to free speech.

Other scientists are sick of Mann and his self-centered screeching:

Because Mann's conduct has been an utter and complete disgrace. He's lied about being a Nobel laureate, he's lied about being multiply exonerated, he's lied about other scientists, and tried to bully and smear and intimidate anyone who refuses to defer to him.

And the only reason he gets away with this is because of the respect that good people, like Mr Huertas, rightly and properly have for science and the scientific method. Science is hard, tough, poorly paid, and often thankless work. It's also the thing that actually advances our species from the savannah to the skyscraper. It's quite right and proper to have a healthy respect for this.

And Mann's abusing it. He is trying to cash in on that respect for his own ends.