Climate Change -- conspiracy theory or is it time we all drive a Prius?

Quote: DoubleGold

The first reference is Gore addressing the WEF.

The second is Clauser and 1600 scientists negating Gore and the WEF.

--------------------------

Climate Change Alarmist Al Gore Declares War on Fossil Fuel Industry

23 Sep 2023
.
.
.
It is now clear that the fossil fuel companies were not “sincere in saying that they wanted to be a meaningful part of bringing solutions to this crisis,” Gore said. “Fossil fuel industry speaks with forked tongue.”

According to the former vice president, the fossil fuel industry has been engaging in “massive fraud” for decades and is now trying to infiltrate the political process at every level, including the U.N.’s annual climate summit.

It is helpful to recall that in 2006, Gore declared that unless drastic measures were implemented, the planet would hit an irreversible “point of no return” by 2016. That year has come and gone with no catastrophic results, despite the employment of no “drastic measures.”

Then in 2008, a video of the opening of a German museum showed Gore saying that “the entire North polar ice cap may well be completely gone in five years,” a prediction that proved spectacularly false.

This past January, Mr. Gore made the remarkable assertion that greenhouse gas pollution was “boiling the oceans,” causing “rain bombs,” and setting the stage for “a billion” climate refugees, during an address at a World Economic Forum (WEF) event in Davos, Switzerland.

Yet the sheep still believe him and do not care he has a huge mansion sucking energy down.

Quote: AZDuffman

Yet the sheep still believe him and do not care he has a huge mansion sucking energy down.

Not true. I care about that as equally as I care about Evenbob's roulette escapades.

These World Climate Declaiation scientist pinheads are welcome to try and get their results published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.

Quote: GenoDRPh

These World Climate Declaiation scientist pinheads are welcome to try and get their results published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.

You will figure it out once your brain reaches full maturity. It is hard to reach the right conclusions with an immature brain.

Quote: GenoDRPh

These World Climate Declaiation scientist pinheads are welcome to try and get their results published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.

You mean you want them to actually compete in the proper arena instead of a sideshow act?

Quote: kenarman

You will figure it out once your brain reaches full maturity. It is hard to reach the right conclusions with an immature brain.

I agree these scientists do indeed have immature brains.

The first link shows one of the 1609 signatories sorted by country.

The second shows a comment from the one signatory listed in the first link, about peer review papers.


"Alas, peer review of the climate literature is a joke."

-- Richard Lindzen

------------------------------

World Climate Declaration
.
.
.
Page 42:
.
.
.
SCIENTISTS AND PROFESSIONALS FROM USA
.
.
.
2. Richard Lindzen, Emeritus Professor Atmospheres, Oceans and Climate, MIT; WCD Ambassador
.
.
.
https://clintel.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/WCD-version-081423.pdf

------------------------

AS CAREER PHYSICISTS, SCIENCE DEMONSTRATES
THERE IS NO CLIMATE RELATED RISK
CAUSED BY FOSSIL FUELS AND CO2,
THUS NO SCIENTIFIC BASIS FOR THE PROPOSED RULE,
AND, IF ADOPTED, DISASTROUS CONSEQUENCES
FOR PEOPLE WORLDWIDE AND THE U. S. BECAUSE
IT WOULD REDUCE CO2 AND THE USE OF FOSSIL FUELS

June 17, 2022
.
.
.
Page 5:
.
.
.
Peer Review.

Peer review can be helpful in many areas of science, but it does not
determine scientific validity. Agreement of theoretical predictions with observation or
experiment, “the scientific method,” is the real touchstone of truth in science.

In our decades of personal experience in the field we have been dismayed that many
distinguished scientific journals now have editorial boards that further the agenda of
climate-change alarmism rather than objective science. Research papers with scientific
findings contrary to the dogma of climate calamity are rejected by reviewers, many of
whom fear that their research funding will be cut if any doubt is cast on the coming
climate catastrophe. Journal editors have been fired for publishing papers that go against
the party line of the climate-alarm establishment.

Alas, peer review of the climate literature is a joke. It is pal review, not peer review.
The present situation violates the ancient principle “no man shall be a judge in his own
cause.” Accordingly, all peer reviewed climate publications need to be viewed with skepticism.
Some are right, but many have serious problems with confirmation bias.
.
.
.
https://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-10-22/s71022-20132171-302668.pdf

----------------------

Showing Dick's background:

------------------

Page 2:

Richard Lindzen, PhD

I am a Professor Emeritus in the Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences
at MIT. After completing my doctorate at Harvard in 1964 (with a thesis on the interaction of
photochemistry, radiation and dynamics in the stratosphere), I did postdoctoral work at the
University of Washington and at the University of Oslo before joining the National Center for
Atmospheric Research as a staff scientist. At the end of 1967, I moved to the University of Chicago
as a tenured associate professor, and in 1971 I returned to Harvard to assume the Gordon McKay
Professorship (and later the Burden Professorship) in Dynamic Meteorology. In 1981 I moved to
MIT to assume the Alfred P. Sloan Professorship in Atmospheric Sciences. I have also held visiting
professorships at UCLA, Tel Aviv University, and the National Physical Laboratory in Ahmedabad,
India, the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, and the
Laboratory for Dynamic Meteorology at the University of Paris.

I developed our current understanding of the quasi-biennial oscillation of the tropical
stratosphere, the current explanation for dominance of the solar semidiurnal and diurnal tides at
various levels of the atmosphere, the role of breaking gravity waves as a major source of friction in
the atmosphere, and the role of this friction in reversing the meridional temperature gradient at the
tropopause (where the equator is the coldest latitude) and the mesopause (where temperature is a
minimum at the summer pole and a maximum at the winter pole). I have also developed the basic
description of how surface temperature in the tropics controls the distribution of cumulus convection,
and led the group that discovered the iris effect where upper level cirrus contract in response to
warmer surface temperatures. I have published approximately 250 papers and books. I am an award
recipient of the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union. I am a
fellow of the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union and the American
Association for the Advancement of Science, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences
and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

I have served as the director of the Center for Earth and Planetary Sciences at Harvard, and
on numerous panels of the National Research Council. I was also a lead author on the Third
Assessment Report of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – the report for which
the IPCC shared the Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore. I am currently a member of the CO2
Coalition.
.
.
.
https://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-10-22/s71022-20132171-302668.pdf

----------------------

Quote: AZDuffman

Yet the sheep still believe him and do not care he has a huge mansion sucking energy down.

It's interesting some of us can't see the scam.

-----------------------

Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth'? -- A $30,000 Utility Bill

February 26, 2007
.
.
.
Back home in Tennessee, safely ensconced in his suburban Nashville home, Vice President Al Gore is no doubt basking in the Oscar awarded to "An Inconvenient Truth," the documentary he inspired and in which he starred. But a local free-market think tank is trying to make that very home emblematic of what it deems Gore's environmental hypocrisy.

Armed with Gore's utility bills for the last two years, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research charged Monday that the gas and electric bills for the former vice president's 20-room home and pool house devoured nearly 221,000 kilowatt-hours in 2006, more than 20 times the national average of 10,656 kilowatt-hours.

"If this were any other person with $30,000-a-year in utility bills, I wouldn't care," says the Center's 27-year-old president, Drew Johnson. "But he tells other people how to live and he's not following his own rules."
.
.
.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/GlobalWarming/story?id=2906888&page=1

------------------------

The people who think peer review is a joke are the same people who science can't hold up to peer review scrutiny.