This petition can be dismissed and ignored as the signatories are just Al Gore haters -- they must all have GDS (Gore Derangement Syndrome). They've been blinded by their hate for Al Gore and would oppose anything he supports.

Clearly there is no reason OTHER than these people having GDS for them to have signed this petition.

Scientists blinded by hate? That is a rarity since they are basically emotion free.

About time the corrupt UN got some challenges. ww

Cassy;

Are you a high school graduate?

This means you Huckabee, McCain, Giuliani and Romney.

All answered affirmatively when asked in the last debate if the "believe" that global climate change is a serious, man-made threat.

Are you a GW "believer" or a "skeptic"?

"...these Summaries are prepared by a relatively small core writing team with the final drafts approved line-by-line by ­government ­representatives. The great ­majority of IPCC contributors and ­reviewers, and the tens of thousands of other scientists who are qualified to comment on these matters, are not involved in the preparation of these documents. The summaries therefore cannot properly be represented as a consensus view among experts."

I would NEVER have guessed! Third-World tinpot leaders and other "honest" politicians and hirlings writing the summary that's used to alter social norms and "level" the economic playing field, all while garnering more power to these individuals and lining their pockets.

After "oil for food", who wouldn't buy into this altruistic effort? sarc/off

And all led by Nobel Al.

Yes, Semanticleo, I am a high school graduate. I even went to -- gasp!! -- college!

Seems Al is getting blasted for his hypocrisy and arrogance. First the Harvard Crimson mocks him in an editorial, Jack Cafferty (big bush hater) on CNN called him pompous the other day and even Robert Redford made some snide remarks. People are waking up.

About.Damn.Time.

Cassy, Semanticleo wanted to know because he's filling out college applications in a few years and he wants some tips.

Semanticleo, it's a little early to start worrying about college while still in the 5th grade. You have plenty of time.

It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages

The year was 1978. The place was northern Ohio. I was 17 years old, smoking dope and bad mouthing my country.

But the biggest thing going on was the undeniable fact that a new ice age was upon us. Winter after winter was getting colder and colder with the climatic blizzard that year. We couldn't get out for days. Even the summers seemed chilly back then.

If anyone told me anything contrary to the fact that a new ice age was coming I would have asked them; "Are you a high school graduate?", because the evidence was up to the second story of our house.

Now that I am older and wiser and actually lived through a weather pattern that didn't climax with glaciers sliding down from the north as predicted "by scientists", all I can say now is "opps".

"I even went to -- gasp!! -- college!"

Liberty University doesn't count.

But the biggest thing going on was the undeniable fact that a new ice age was upon us.
...
I was 17 years old, smoking dope

That explains your poor memory.

Brian,
Where does the myth come from? Naturally enough, there is a kernel of truth behind it all.

Your own links continue to refute you, which in realclimate's case is particularly sad. Are you supposed to be some parody of a leftroid, or are you that dumb?

The ice age problem was identical to the global warming in that both were misunderstood by the press, and seized upon by the occasional politician with an agenda.

"Cassy;

Are you a high school graduate?

Jealousy will get you nowhere.

Your own links continue to refute you

Not so much.

The ice age problem was identical to the global warming in that both were misunderstood by the press

And fundamentally different in that amidst the ice age speculation was the conclusion that:

we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate ... Probably the best summary of the time was the 1975 NAS/NRC report. This is a serious sober assessment of what was known at the time, and their conclusion was that they didn't know enough to make predictions.

Hardly an "undeniable fact that a new ice age was upon us".

"It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages."

Too bad they have to keep reminding people. I'm sure algore is convinced he knows more because he's figured out not only how to blindside people with his controversial "evidence", but he's managed to cash in on the whole "dilemma".

That explains your poor memory

I love when someone posts a link in an attempt to debunk me, and then it ends up verifying "my" point even more instead.

In your link Brian it clearly states:

should clarify that I'm talking about predictions in the scientific press. There were some regrettable things published in the popular press (e.g. Newsweek; though National Geographic did better).

My memory is fully intact since you proved to everyone that all the major media were reporting this. I guess I didn't miss a thing.

And gee, they regret that this was just a big mistake. That was old ancient 1970's technology predicting the new ice age. Not like the new sophisticated stuff we have today.

We're not that different Brian, except you are still smoking dope and bad mouthing your country. And 30 years from now you can reminisce about the old days when there was a "global warming scare" and how you fell for it, because you know....that old early 2000's technology. Not like the stuff we have in the 2030's.

But that will only come about when you put the bong down and mature a few more years.

Here are a couple of links about Great Blizzard of 1978:

Great Blizzard of 1978

Weather Historians Recall Blizzard of Legend

The worst winter storm in Ohio's history struck before dawn on January 26, 1978. The "Great Blizzard of '78" continued for two days and shut down transportation, schools, and business all across Ohio, for a week in some cases. According to weather historians Thomas and Jeanne Schmidlin, it was a storm that Ohioans will never forget, one that will be a legend through the 21st century

Ohioans who lived through the "Great Blizzard of '78" will never forget it. It is engrained as part of each person's "Ohio Experience", a legend to be told to their children and grandchildren. This storm was compared to the Blizzard of January 1918 and the New Year's Blizzard of 1864 for ferocity and disruption to everyday lives.

"The list of signatories is impressive. But what would they know compared to the Goracle, a politician who was a C student in science?"

Isn't this simply a lie?

You purposefully mislead the reader to think that it's the scientific community vs. Al Gore, who has no scientific training. I'd certainly take these scientists' word if that was the case.

But it's not. The vast majority of scientists think that anthropogenic global warming is real, so it's really a lot of scientists against a few that best characterizes this debate, not these scientists vs. Al Gore.

And that majority may be wrong, granted. But that's besides the point, which is that you lie to the reader as to who's really having this debate. That's inexcusable.

I love when someone posts a link in an attempt to debunk me, and then it ends up verifying "my" point even more instead.

No, it just showed that your "undeniable facts" were based on limited popular media misinterpretation and *gasp* a blizzard one year that left snow piled up against your house. And it shows your claim that all that was "as predicted by scientists" is bogus. If you want to continue to defend that as the basis for "undeniable fact", you're the only one looking foolish.

There most certainly was an "ice age hysteria" in the 70's. I was just a kid at the time, couldn't have cared less about politics or the news, but somehow this particular threat of crisis penetrated into even my encapsulated little world.

Not only that, but also the impending doom of "world-wide famine" and "population explosion."

You can blow it out your ear Brian - reality denier and historical revisionist. Next you'll be telling us that the left didn't really allow our government to be infiltrated by Communists. How old are you?

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

There most certainly was an "ice age hysteria" in the 70's.

I lived through the 70s too, and don't remember this "hysteria". Perhaps an article or two in Newsweek is all the criteria you need for "hysteria," but most people look to scientists for information about science.

You can blow it out your ear Brian - reality denier and historical revisionist.

Reality and history is "sensationalizing of a potential ice age in some popular press but not backed by the scientific community". That would be a historically accurate claim.

But the claim here was "undeniable fact that a new ice age was upon us... as predicted by scientists". That is demonstrably false. And if you believe it to be true, go ahead and show us why.

Other than that, all I'm seeing here is backpedaling from the initial claim, assisted by either hand-waving distraction or an attempt to change the subject. Or, one might even say, reality denial and historical revisionism.

"There most certainly was an "ice age hysteria" in the 70's."

And the scientific community was by and large in favor of this model? BS.

It was proposed that particulate matter could reflect sunlight back out to space, but it was never an accepted model in the scientific community becasue

1.there wasn't enough evidence

and

2. Climatologists even back then realized that even if that model was true, increased carbon in the atmosphere would at the least counteract it.

If there was such a hysteria - find me the scientific literature beyond speculation. You can say whatever you like, but give me the proof.

Brian,

I will grant that the press unnecessarily seized upon and sensationalized data not backed by all scientists. The hysteria was probably media generated and did not actually exist in the scientific community. Boy howdy - things sure different today...

So what? Your argument is besides the point. The point is that some science was selectively seized upon and fear generated in society by those with vested interests to do so - namely leftists.

This did not just happen with the weather, but with every facet of dubious science that the left could exploit. I give you Rachel Carson by way of example.

Today every bureaucracy has only gotten bigger and the politicization worse. The pressure was not quite as great back then as it is now, but it was still there. We were largely a captive audience with few media publications and only three channels to watch, after all.

No, it just showed that your "undeniable facts" were based on limited popular media misinterpretation

Dang Brian, it almost as if you are trying to make my points for me.

I am telling you the new ice age was being hyped in the media. You are just reaffirming it for me.

And no kidding it turned out to be wrong because that period of cooling ended and the trend reversed.

Journalists have warned of climate change for 100 years, but can't decide weather we face an ice age or warming

What can one conclude from 110 years of conflicting climate coverage except that the weather changes and the media are just as capricious?

Certainly, their record speaks for itself. Four separate and distinct climate theories targeted at a public taught to believe the news. Only all four versions of the truth can't possibly be accurate.

For ordinary Americans to judge the media's version of current events about global warming, it is necessary to admit that journalists have misrepresented the story three other times.

Yet no one in the media is owning up to that fact. Newspapers that pride themselves on correction policies for the smallest errors now find themselves facing a historical record that is enormous and unforgiving.

Who cares what journalists do? Journalists have hyped a lot of nonsense stories over the years - does this mean that anything they write about is therefor necessarily wrong?

What do scientists think - that's the only cite that really matters. Scientists may be wrong, but at least they're looking at the evidence.

The logic I'm reading here is:

"Carbon that people put in the atmosphere is not warming the planet because back in the 1970s journalists started a hysteria re: whether particulate matter was causing global cooling. "

Great work, guys - all those scientists got nothing on you!

Steve:

What do scientists think - that's the only cite that really matters.

Let me edit that for truthfulness for you:

What do scientists whose opinions comport with my own ideology think - that's the only cite that really matters.

Here is the mental picture of the current state of science:

A leftist shouts through a megaphone in one hand "consensus! consensus!" while the other hand wields a billy club to make sure consensus is enforced.

Steve:

"You purposefully mislead the reader to think that it's the scientific community vs. Al Gore, who has no scientific training. I'd certainly take these scientists' word if that was the case."

That's unadulterated cow shit.

The Goracle has been dubbed that because has set himself as THE spokesman for the alleged "2600 scientists" on the IPCC.

He along with a good portion of the 2600 are nothing more than hucksters.

"The Goracle has been dubbed that because has set himself as THE spokesman for the alleged "2600 scientists" on the IPCC.

He along with a good portion of the 2600 are nothing more than hucksters."

and you know this because you're in a position to adjudicate the data. right....

Two points:
1. What she said is a lie, regardless of what Gore does:
"The list of signatories is impressive. But what would they know compared to the Goracle, a politician who was a C student in science? "

Whether you like it or not, many scientists agree that anthopogenic global warming is real. They may be wrong, but this is a fact. Her statement clearly says that scientists think it's tripe but Al Gore believes it, and he's no scientist. IOW:Science vs. Al Gore on science. Regardless of what you think of anthro global warming, this is a lie simply becasue MANY scientists think anthro global warming is real. So claiming that the debate is Al Gore vs. the scientific community is a lie. Very simple point and has nothing to do w/ global warming. It's simple integrity.

2. Most geophysics scientists interpret the available evidence as indicative of anthropogenic global warming. They may be wrong, but this is a fact and it only makes her transgression worse. The debate that most believe is still in play is about extent, and what we should or shouldn't do about it - no small debate. Look at the academic societies and what they endorse. These are not my opinions.

I know wikipedia is not an ideal source, but they provide links to the major societies so I think it's OK in this instance:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

"What do scientists whose opinions comport with my own ideology think - that's the only cite that really matters."

Here is the mental picture of the current state of science:

A leftist shouts through a megaphone in one hand "consensus! consensus!" while the other hand wields a billy club to make sure consensus is enforced."

My point is that this is a scientific question, and your hatred for Al Gore or what the media did in the 70's are completely besides the point. I'm quite sure you don't understand one iota of the scientific data, yet you have an 'opinion' on it all (of course), or at least what passes for one.

Shame on you for being so slothful as to not even try and understand what the debate is about and so ignorant as to prattle on as though you do.

Steve, when the AGW proponents start actually doing real science, instead of refusing to disclose data and methodology, hiding inconvenient data, attacking critics with ad hominem instead of actually dealing with criticism and participating in the debate, then you might have a point.

Oh, and Al Gore is not merely a focus of hatred, but also is a joke, as he claims to be an advocate but can't get basic things right.

"Steve, when the AGW proponents start actually doing real science, instead of refusing to disclose data and methodology, hiding inconvenient data, attacking critics with ad hominem instead of actually dealing with criticism and participating in the debate, then you might have a point."

I'm not going to say that every single scientist who interprets the data as being indicative of AGW has been correct on everything. But how the hell can YOU tell what's right here? YOu don't know anyting about climate modeling or geophysics - so shouldn't you just throw up your hands and say "I really don't understand the science either.". Aren't you, at the least, no better than Al Gore in that you pretend to understand this stuff and really do not?

And this whole stupid 'reasoning' of trying to infer whether AGW is happening or not becasue of Al Gore or jouranlistic hype is just inane. Shit on Al Gore and shit on jouranlists. There's many, many more scientists that think AGW is happening than not. Why is that? Al Gore? 70s media hype? Liberal media?

Please... Stop being a lazy shit, get out of the politics of it, and get your hands dirty with the data or STFU becasue you don't know what you're talking about.

Oh, and Al Gore is not merely a focus of hatred, but also is a joke, as he claims to be an advocate but can't get basic things right.

Oh, and Al Gore is not merely a focus of hatred, but also is a joke, as he claims to be an advocate but can't get basic things right.

The ignorant who have this feverish hatred of Al Gore are pathetic. Why does the truth scare you so? Oh, that's right. You're the same little cowards who hide behind your brilliant leader GWB as he lies to you about every little thing. But, hey, you believe him, don't you? Of course you do. Cowards are willing to believe anyone who makes them feel safe, make excuses for every father figure.

You're the same pathetic crowd that hundreds of years ago would hang a man for claiming the world is round. You will always be on the wrong side of history and, for those of us who don't run around this planet afraid, always be a sad example of humankind at it's weakest.

"Please... Stop being a lazy shit, get out of the politics of it, and get your hands dirty with the data or STFU becasue you don't know what you're talking about."

I'm your Huckleberry...True, the media ran with it, but someone else started it.

Steve, you're the only one using the word "hatred" in this comment thread. Why is that? The only one with a political agenda, is the subject of this post. You have no idea what you are talking about because this is obviouly an opinion piece. And who the hell doesn't know what the "real debate" is about?

One group of scientists believe that man's misuse of resources is accelerating Global Warming. Another group believes the climate change is inevitable regardless of man's intervention.The fact remains that Al Gore as won the Nobel Peace Prize and taken endless credit for someone else's debate and research. He is the media hype and distraction that is nothing else but political.

Shame on you for being so slothful as to not even try and understand what the debate is about and so ignorant as to prattle on as though you do.

No, shame on you for having the audacity to accuse the poster of lying when writing an opinion piece.

Correction: You and hansel are the ones using the word "hatred". And yeah, you don't need to remind us of what a joke he is.

YOu don't know anyting about climate modeling or geop