“Donald Trump Wants Al Gore’s Nobel Peace Prize Stripped”
BallisticBob on February 15, 2010 at 10:54 AM

Makes me wonder if Al about to get Rosie O’Donnelled.

MarkTheGreat on February 15, 2010 at 1:15 PM

You got it. Litigation flushes the warmers out into the open for all the world to see.

petefrt on February 15, 2010 at 2:05 PM

It can also get them pointing fingers at each other, which can provide substantial leverage.

It is way past time for us to have a name with a positive connotation rather than denier and sceptic.

burt on February 15, 2010 at 3:32 PM

Truther?

(Just kidding ;)

Not surprising. CO2 only absorbs infrared light in two narrow wavelength bands, and within those bands, it absorbs practically all the energy available.

Steve Z on February 15, 2010 at 2:17 PM

Here’s a graph of CO2 absorbtion spectra, along with the other major greenhouse gases.

http://www.iitap.iastate.edu/gccourse/forcing/images/image7.gif

Not only does CO2 only have only two strong absorbtion bands, one of the bands completely overlaps one of water’s bands, and the other CO2 band partly overlaps another water band.

The result is that each new molecule of CO2 added to the atmospher has next to no impact on how much IR is escaping the planet.

Guy actualy used surface stations and looked at the amount of Energy being absorbed by the atmosphere… and found that even though CO2 increased, the amount of ENERGY being absorbed was CONSTANT.

Romeo13 on February 15, 2010 at 10:49 AM

Not surprising. CO2 only absorbs infrared light in two narrow wavelength bands, and within those bands, it absorbs practically all the energy available. Increasing the CO2 concentration wouldn’t make new energy available–the same energy would be absorbed closer to the earth, but convection currents would distribute the energy higher in the atmosphere.

Of course, it’s GREAT to have experimental evidence, rather than just theory, to prove that additional CO2 in the atmosphere does NOT increase the energy absorbed.

Hats off to Guy!

A lawsuit gives you right of discovery. You can get them to disclose their data and methods. If they won’t they lose. If they can’t, you can expose them as frauds.

MarkTheGreat on February 15, 2010 at 1:15 PM

You got it. Litigation flushes the warmers out into the open for all the world to see.

That makes the entire report “scientifically true” which apparently is different from factually true; to disbelieve this just because it is demonstrably false using math and data and stuff makes you a science denier, unpatriotic, and stupid.

I’m pretty sure that summarizes what I’ve learned from being cynical about the AGW claims for the past decade. Factual evidence is useless, only ever listen to a majority of scientists regardless of the data.

I’m pretty sure this holds true even when there is no data and the claim was a spurious one made with no logic, reasoning, data, or basis for the claim.

What precisely is left of this “theory”? [Question:] Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical? [Phil Jones:]… Temperature data …

What the Donald wants, the Donald gets.
Except for the Double Dunk trophy.

MarkTheGreat on February 15, 2010 at 1:13 PM

ROFLMAO!!!

The first priortity is to debunk the ’science’ of AGW, which has been shielded from scrutiny by leftist media.

petefrt on February 15, 2010 at 11:16 AM

A lawsuit gives you right of discovery. You can get them to disclose their data and methods. If they won’t they lose. If they can’t, you can expose them as frauds.

“Donald Trump Wants Al Gore’s Nobel Peace Prize Stripped”

BallisticBob on February 15, 2010 at 10:54 AM

What the Donald wants, the Donald gets.
Except for the Double Dunk trophy.

Ladies and gentlemen
I wanna scream
OAAAAAKLAAAAAAANNNNNND !!!!!!!!

macncheez on February 15, 2010 at 12:50 PM

Other thread. Selling peer review.

Bailed when the local climate heated up.

O/T: CNN had a graphic on the screen that said “SUCCESS IN AFGANISTAN” which is cool, but isn’t kinda early? At this point at the start of the Afgan War in 2001 the media was crying “QUAGMIRE!”

Tony737 on February 15, 2010 at 9:53 AM

Big difference. This time there’s a Democrat in the WH.

This is the U.N.

They want this kind of report to suggest ways to penalize the U.S. and the west, and to support schemes by which massive transfers of wealth to the third world will take place.

If Pachauri hadn’t delivered this kind of product, they would have just gone out to find someone who would.

How could anyone possibly think that the U.N. had any interest in a balanced, scientifically valid report? What precedent is there for such a thing?

G

Now who would have thought of that?  How long has it been that I, Snooper, Have been saying this?  Since 1973 or what?
Fro ……

Yes, and what ever happened to Sevan, by the way? Is he living in a jail somewhere? Or in a villa.

Agree with everything you say, just not optimistic the UN and it’s elites will feel any consequences.

petefrt on February 15, 2010 at 11:40 AM

Sevan and the Oil-For-Food Program scandal has obviously been swept under the rug, I’m afraid. The Pachauri/IPCC-AGW scandal is too high profile for that to happen this time, though. Still, there are way too many major personalities and countries heavily invested in the theory of AGW, financially. Britain especially has already enacted taxes and fees and restrictive legislation that have negatively impacted their economy and employment.

It will be most interesting to see just how this all not only unravels, but how those major personalities and those countries backpedal and undo the devastating damage to civilians both economically and morally. Within the United States, California is the stepchild of this movement, related legislation, taxes and fees, are all part of what has driven that state to the brink of bankruptcy.

All of it, bottom line, was an issue of control and power: Power to control the masses of unwashed civilians, under the auspices of saving the planet from human destruction. Yet it was nothing more than just another vehicle for progressive control over ordinary, hard-working civilians, their actions, their property, and especially their money.