Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 26

Thread: huge lawsuit over 'carbon credits' sellers ...

  1. #1
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default huge lawsuit over 'carbon credits' sellers ...

    ... it appears that Al Gore may wind up as a defendant ...


    (snip)"[Weather Channel Founder John - sic] Coleman told an audience at the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change on March 3 in New York that he is highly critical of global warming alarmism.

    “The Weather Channel had great promise, and that’s all gone now because they’ve made every mistake in the book on what they’ve done and how they’ve done it and it’s very sad,” Coleman said. “It’s now for sale and there’s a new owner of The Weather Channel will be announced – several billion dollars having changed hands in the near future. Let’s hope the new owners can recapture the vision and stop reporting the traffic, telling us what to think and start giving us useful weather information.”

    The Weather Channel has been an outlet for global warming alarmism. In December 2006, The Weather Channel’s Heidi Cullen argued on her blog that weathercasters who had doubts about human influence on global warming should be punished with decertification by the American Meteorological Society.

    Coleman also told the audience his strategy for exposing what he called “the fraud of global warming.” He advocated suing those who sell carbon credits, which would force global warming alarmists to give a more honest account of the policies they propose.

    “[I] have a feeling this is the opening,” Coleman said. “If the lawyers will take the case – sue the people who sell carbon credits. That includes Al Gore. That lawsuit would get so much publicity, so much media attention. And as the experts went to the media stand to testify, I feel like that could become the vehicle to finally put some light on the fraud of global warming.”

    Earlier at the conference Lord Christopher Monckton, a policy adviser to former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, told an audience that the science will eventually prevail and the “scare” of global warming will go away. He also said the courts were a good avenue to show the science."(snip)

    fromhttp://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20080303175301.aspx

  2. #2
    Veteran Member LadyLuck's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    521
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: huge lawsuit over 'carbon credits' sellers ...

    LOL! Never going to happen and even if it did the global warming denial people would lose that lawsuit in two second flat because the majority of expert scientific opinion just simply isn't on their side.

  3. #3
    Jay Zeno
    Guest

    Default Re: huge lawsuit over 'carbon credits' sellers ...

    The courts have rarely been a good avenue to show science. Whorish experts, and manipulative advocates, yes. Science, no.

  4. #4
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: huge lawsuit over 'carbon credits' sellers ...

    Quote Originally Posted by LadyLuck View Post
    LOL! Never going to happen and even if it did the global warming denial people would lose that lawsuit in two second flat because the majority of expert scientific opinion just simply isn't on their side.
    Really ? A global warming advocate on the stand under cross examination having to admit to all the contrary data and try to explain away the flawed methodology ?

    Be careful what you wish for.

  5. #5
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: huge lawsuit over 'carbon credits' sellers ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Jay Zeno View Post
    The courts have rarely been a good avenue to show science. Whorish experts, and manipulative advocates, yes. Science, no.
    Actually an adversarial forum is a wonderful place to expose faulty or "junk" science. Look what happened to the Christers and Intelligent Design advocates in Kansas and Pennsylvania. Not only did they lose in court but they were tossed out in the next election.

  6. #6
    Jay Zeno
    Guest

    Default Re: huge lawsuit over 'carbon credits' sellers ...

    Oh, let's just say we've had different observations of court. In my experience, junk science flourishes in the courtroom as long as someone has the money to pay for the expert who's willing to customize the "conclusions" for the right price. The laws determining what an expert is are broad enough to include any number of charlatans.

    Not to say that the right result can't happen. It can, and when it does, it's grand.

  7. #7
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: huge lawsuit over 'carbon credits' sellers ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Jay Zeno View Post
    Oh, let's just say we've had different observations of court. In my experience, junk science flourishes in the courtroom as long as someone has the money to pay for the expert who's willing to customize the "conclusions" for the right price. The laws determining what an expert is are broad enough to include any number of charlatans.

    Not to say that the right result can't happen. It can, and when it does, it's grand.

    This certainly occurs but when it does there was almost always an incompetent lawyer on the other side. Under various recent Supreme Court decisions re-interpreting the "Frye" doctrine the judge is supposed to be the gatekeeper and prevent the jury from hearing unsupported psuedo-scientific testimony. And they are supposed to do it sua sponte i.e. on their own without the other side necessarily challenging it.

    In these days of Lexis, Nexus and other Internet searches it is actually fairly easy to discredit a charlatan IF you put in the time and effort and actually do the homework. A recent example is the FBI Lab was shown to be relying on junk science in bullet fragment analysis claiming to be able to match metallic fragments from bullets and trace them to a single gun when it was later shown to be scientifically inpossible to do any such thing.

  8. #8
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: huge lawsuit over 'carbon credits' sellers ...

    Could somebody please explain to me what legal basis there might be for this suit?
    extortion ?

    actually, it would probably be related to the valuation mechanisms used to 'price' carbon credits, and the constitutionality of legal mandates which would force businesses to purchase said credits.

    A scenario which comes to mind is the electric power industry, who would not be allowed to simply shut down power plants in order to reduce CO2 emissions to meet Kyotolike mandatory emission limits (thus leaving some customers in the dark), and who therefore would be forced by one law to emit CO2 in order to keep customer's lights on and simultaneously forced by another law to purchase 'carbon credits' to offset their CO2 emissions. Such conflicting mandates could result in billions of dollars worth of gov't compensation payments to utilities under the 'takings' clause. Of course, non-regulated industries would have the option of simply pulling the plug on American operations, firing most of their US employees, and starting up a factory in a developing country to make the same products in order to avoid purchasing carbon credits.

  9. #9
    Jay Zeno
    Guest

    Default Re: huge lawsuit over 'carbon credits' sellers ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Stoner View Post
    This certainly occurs but when it does there was almost always an incompetent lawyer on the other side. Under various recent Supreme Court decisions re-interpreting the "Frye" doctrine the judge is supposed to be the gatekeeper and prevent the jury from hearing unsupported psuedo-scientific testimony.
    Hmph. We have different experiences. The Frye doctrine (generally accepted methodology in the relevant scientific community) sounds good, but when you have a relatively soft science, like psychology or weather prediction, or even hard science, like accident reconstruction or diagnostic protocol, a fully competent attorney can most likely find someone to be qualified as an expert to generate the data that points to the conclusion that's most wanted.

    The reachings within this very forum as to global climate are a clear illustration of how scientific findings can be focused narrowly and cherry-picked to get the results one already wants.

  10. #10
    Veteran Member LadyLuck's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    521
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: huge lawsuit over 'carbon credits' sellers ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Stoner View Post
    Actually an adversarial forum is a wonderful place to expose faulty or "junk" science. Look what happened to the Christers and Intelligent Design advocates in Kansas and Pennsylvania. Not only did they lose in court but they were tossed out in the next election.
    Man do I hate to have to agree with you on anything but the Intelligent Design situation is actually a good example.

    Ofcourse in the situation being proposed here it lends itself to show that that global warming denial people are the ones who would likely be shown to be the ones pushing junk science even if just based on the numbers of potential experts. Fact is that there are simply many more scientific experts who agree that global warming is being dramiticly increased becauseof co2 than the other way around.

    Not that I think this kind of case would ever make it into court in the first place. I believe it would be laughed at as a ridiculous claim just the same way that the global warming denial people are laughed at and discredited by the majority of mainstream science.

    To prove a claim of extortion there would have to be undeniable proof that the IPCC has been intentionally lying to the entire world. And that proof does not exist. Not at this point in time anyway & I predict will never exist because in my opinion, it just isn’t what has occurred with the IPCC.

  11. #11
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: huge lawsuit over 'carbon credits' sellers ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Jay Zeno View Post
    Hmph. We have different experiences. The Frye doctrine (generally accepted methodology in the relevant scientific community) sounds good, but when you have a relatively soft science, like psychology or weather prediction, or even hard science, like accident reconstruction or diagnostic protocol, a fully competent attorney can most likely find someone to be qualified as an expert to generate the data that points to the conclusion that's most wanted.

    The reachings within this very forum as to global climate are a clear illustration of how scientific findings can be focused narrowly and cherry-picked to get the results one already wants.
    NOT under "Daubert" and its progeny. The judge is empowered to exclude so called experts and testimony unsupported by recognized peer reviewed science. And the number of pre-trial challenges to proposed expert testimony has exploded.

  12. #12
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: huge lawsuit over 'carbon credits' sellers ...

    Quote Originally Posted by LadyLuck View Post
    Man do I hate to have to agree with you on anything but the Intelligent Design situation is actually a good example.

    Ofcourse in the situation being proposed here it lends itself to show that that global warming denial people are the ones who would likely be shown to be the ones pushing junk science even if just based on the numbers of potential experts. Fact is that there are simply many more scientific experts who agree that global warming is being dramiticly increased becauseof co2 than the other way around.

    Not that I think this kind of case would ever make it into court in the first place. I believe it would be laughed at as a ridiculous claim just the same way that the global warming denial people are laughed at and discredited by the majority of mainstream science.

    To prove a claim of extortion there would have to be undeniable proof that the IPCC has been intentionally lying to the entire world. And that proof does not exist. Not at this point in time anyway & I predict will never exist because in my opinion, it just isn’t what has occurred with the IPCC.
    Numbers of adherents does not determine validity. Time and time again the "minority" or "crackpot" view was proven to be correct. Otherwise we'd still believe the earth is flat and that the sun revolves around it; that "bad air" causes
    malaria; that another Ice Age is just around the corner etc.

    Actually, it is the Global Warming advocates who are pushing unproven theories and tossing out all the data that does not fit their theory. The credentials of teh skeptics are just as impressive as those of the proponents. And, just as some skeptics have received research grants from Oil companies and other energy concerns; many a G.W. Proponent has taken money from Soros and Gore's buddies who stand to benefit tremendously from carbon credits and trading and the like.

  13. #13
    Veteran Member LadyLuck's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    521
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: huge lawsuit over 'carbon credits' sellers ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Stoner View Post
    Numbers of adherents does not determine validity. Time and time again the “minority” “crackpot” view was proven to be correct. Otherwise we'd still believe the earth is flat and that the sun revolves around it; that “bad air” causes malaria; that another Ice Age is just around the corner etc.

    Actually, it is the Global Warming advocates who are pushing unproven theories and tossing out all the data that does not fit their theory. .

    Obviously we aren’t talking about adherents. This isn’t “faith” or a “belief” thing here. This is science. We are talking about scientific study and proofs and there numbers of experts in agreement do matter a great deal. On this subject neither the numbers of those in agreement or the amount of scientific proof are on your or your fellow global warming deniers side either. And that is just a fact. A provable and undeniable fact.

    Funny that you mention the whole flat earth society types too since that is precisely the most common comparison made of the global warming deniers. It’s a perfect fit if I do say so myself, LOL!

    It’s also amazing that you claim the global warming deniers are not throwing out data that doesn’t fit their agenda at all, ever! It just goes to show that you are not well versed in this subject whatsoever. Due to that I find once again no further point in discussing this subject with you.

    The last thing I am going to add to this discussion is a general comment about the topic title. It's is extremely misleading. It tries to indicate that such a lawsuit currently exists & ofcourse as of right now and at the time it was posted no such lawsuit exists at all. Nor is there any logical indication that a similar lawsuit will actually exist in the near future. This topic is nothing but a bunch of ridiculous hyperbole.

  14. #14
    Tauries
    Guest

    Default Re: huge lawsuit over 'carbon credits' sellers ...

    Quote Originally Posted by LadyLuck View Post
    Obviously we aren’t talking about adherents. This isn’t “faith” or a “belief” thing here. This is science. We are talking about scientific study and proofs and there numbers of experts in agreement do matter a great deal. On this subject neither the numbers of those in agreement or the amount of scientific proof are on your or your fellow global warming deniers side either. And that is just a fact. A provable and undeniable fact.

    Funny that you mention the whole flat earth society types too since that is precisely the most common comparison made of the global warming deniers. It’s a perfect fit if I do say so myself, LOL!

    It’s also amazing that you claim the global warming deniers are not throwing out data that doesn’t fit their agenda at all, ever! It just goes to show that you are not well versed in this subject whatsoever. Due to that I find once again no further point in discussing this subject with you.

    The last thing I am going to add to this discussion is a general comment about the topic title. It's is extremely misleading. It tries to indicate that such a lawsuit currently exists & ofcourse as of right now and at the time it was posted no such lawsuit exists at all. Nor is there any logical indication that a similar lawsuit will actually exist in the near future. This topic is nothing but a bunch of ridiculous hyperbole.
    Perhaps YOU could provide some of this incontrovertible airtight scientific proof...even a link in a direction where this mythical beast might lie would be far more appreciated then the condescending, ridiculous hyperbole you continue to spew...the kind that could make one wonder what your agenda here truly is.

  15. #15
    Veteran Member LadyLuck's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    521
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: huge lawsuit over 'carbon credits' sellers ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Tauries View Post
    Perhaps YOU could provide some of this incontrovertible airtight scientific proof...even a link in a direction where this mythical beast might lie would be far more appreciated
    Anyone even just slightly versed in the global warming debate knows what scientific data I am refering to but since some people may not actually know anything about it a good place to start is



    Also you can do a search on some of my recent posts and you will find a number of links to NASA.

    Ok. I said it before but now I am really,really done here for today. If you or anyone else wants to live in the laughable & micro mini part of the population who is in global warming denial, so be it. Not my problem.
    Last edited by LadyLuck; 03-05-2008 at 02:51 PM.

  16. #16
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: huge lawsuit over 'carbon credits' sellers ...

    Quote Originally Posted by LadyLuck View Post
    Obviously we aren’t talking about adherents. This isn’t “faith” or a “belief” thing here. This is science. We are talking about scientific study and proofs and there numbers of experts in agreement do matter a great deal. On this subject neither the numbers of those in agreement or the amount of scientific proof are on your or your fellow global warming deniers side either. And that is just a fact. A provable and undeniable fact.

    Funny that you mention the whole flat earth society types too since that is precisely the most common comparison made of the global warming deniers. It’s a perfect fit if I do say so myself, LOL!

    It’s also amazing that you claim the global warming deniers are not throwing out data that doesn’t fit their agenda at all, ever! It just goes to show that you are not well versed in this subject whatsoever. Due to that I find once again no further point in discussing this subject with you.

    The last thing I am going to add to this discussion is a general comment about the topic title. It's is extremely misleading. It tries to indicate that such a lawsuit currently exists & ofcourse as of right now and at the time it was posted no such lawsuit exists at all. Nor is there any logical indication that a similar lawsuit will actually exist in the near future. This topic is nothing but a bunch of ridiculous hyperbole.
    Excuse me ! YOU are the one who continually throws around unsupported opinions. YOU are the one who states something as though it were irrefutably true when there is plenty of evidence that it is anything but.

    As far as numbers of qualified scientists with the requisite training and experience
    in meteorology and climatology there is NOT a consensus. There WAS a consensus among a group of U.N. sponsored scientists many of whom had highly
    questionable credentials and clearly established biases. Most of those U.N scientists were NOT climatologists or geologists or meteorologists or oceanographers. Many later admitted that they never looked at any data themselves; never questioned any methodology employed and simply wanted to be polite and show their gratitude for being included by going along. More simply put, the U.N. did it's Global Warming study the way it usually does these things;
    with more emphasis on global political correctness than on scientific rigor. "Scientists" were empaneled without any scrutiny whatsoever of their credentials so long as they came from the right countries. As a result most of the African and Asian scientists were selected to participate in order to present a fair cross-section of the world so that the panel would not be "too white". The fact that their credentials were sorely lacking in the relevant scientific disciplines was, of course, overlooked to serve a supposedly greater good.

    When the G.W. advocates are scrutinized two things keep cropping up. First, how many of them have NOT gathered , examined or evaluated the data themselves
    i.e. they are relying on the work of others. In and of itself, that is far from a great scientific sin. It's done all the time. The scientific world couldn't function otherwise . BUT when the accuracy of that data is called into serious question and the methodologies of gathering the so-called data are also questioned by reputable people then they are NOT entitled to rely on said data unless they have checked it for themselves. For instance, higher average temperatures were noted long before elevated CO2 levels when the cause and effect model is supposed to be the converse. Even worse, NOBODY has been able to duplicate Global Warming in the lab or even construct a computer paradigm that takes into account ALL of the relevant climatalogical factors. And even if they did , G.W. would still be a THEORY albeit entitled to greater weight than it otherwise would be without such support.

    At present, SOME scientists have presented a theory with SOME factual support that carbon emissions are causing CO2 levels to increase which in turn is causing global temperatures to rise. Period. That's it.
    There is some evidence to support the theory. There is other evidence to call it into question. Despite the fact that it is NOT PROVEN these scientists expect the U.S. to adopt a radically different lifestyle and a much reduced economy so that
    billions of other people can make up the difference and produce the same or MORE CO2 in our stead.

    The second troubling thing about the G.W. advocates is how many of them lack either the requisite academic credentials in the appropriate and relevant fields
    or any practical experience in measuring and analyzing long term climatological data. For instance meteorologists are for the most part NOT QUALIFIED. It's NOT what they do. They analyze and predict weather. Most are shockingly ignorant
    of relevant climatological history.

    Afaic the jury is out on Man causing G.W. More importantly, in anything resembling
    a realistic analysis of the situation, it doesn't matter. Even if the U.S. and Western Europe drove 100 % electric cars and went totally solar; China, India and the
    rest of the 3rd World are not going to do anything to reduce their carbon emissions. Quite the contrary. They'll keep increasing their carbon output anmd what we do or don't do will not have the slightest effect on the overall situation.

  17. #17
    Jay Zeno
    Guest

    Default Re: huge lawsuit over 'carbon credits' sellers ...

    It'd be more convincing if it weren't the same people who were denying global warming seven years ago (and claiming persecution for saying so) who are now saying, "But it's not human-caused!"

  18. #18
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: huge lawsuit over 'carbon credits' sellers ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Jay Zeno View Post
    It'd be more convincing if it weren't the same people who were denying global warming seven years ago (and claiming persecution for saying so) who are now saying, "But it's not human-caused!"
    Part of the problem is the variable data and HOW you look at it. It can indicate that the Earth is warming and other data says that the Earth is cooling.

  19. #19
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: huge lawsuit over 'carbon credits' sellers ...

    Quote Originally Posted by LadyLuck View Post
    Anyone even just slightly versed in the global warming debate knows what scientific data I am refering to but since some people may not actually know anything about it a good place to start is http://www.ipcc.ch/



    Also you can do a search on some of my recent posts and you will find a number of links to NASA.

    Ok. I said it before but now I am really,really done here for today. If you or anyone else wants to live in the laughable & micro mini part of the population who is in global warming denial, so be it. Not my problem.

    Talk about laughable. When the U.N empanels experts in animal husbandry from Africa and representatives from India and China delegated by their governments to promote their national ( pro-growth ) interests on a Global Climate Change panel whose conclusions were already pre-determined as it was convened AFTER the Kyoto Accords; I don't know if there's enough sodium tolerance in anyone to accept its conclusions at face value.

  20. #20
    Jay Zeno
    Guest

    Default Re: huge lawsuit over 'carbon credits' sellers ...

    Wow.

    Visit a glacier, any glacier. Check the historical terminus. Check the current one. Think back to how much you need air conditioning 20 years ago versus now. It takes some pretty selective data gathering to announce global cooling. Or that tobacco is good for you.

  21. #21
    Tauries
    Guest

    Default Re: huge lawsuit over 'carbon credits' sellers ...

    Quote Originally Posted by LadyLuck View Post
    Anyone even just slightly versed in the global warming debate knows what scientific data I am refering to but since some people may not actually know anything about it a good place to start is



    Also you can do a search on some of my recent posts and you will find a number of links to NASA.

    Ok. I said it before but now I am really,really done here for today. If you or anyone else wants to live in the laughable & micro mini part of the population who is in global warming denial, so be it. Not my problem.
    Pardon me if I point out this page in your supposed . Since I am now having serious doubts about your literacy I will quote for you from your source; "NERC gives no warranty as to the quality or accuracy of the information or its suitability for any use."

    Care to explain why these supposed "scientific facts" have such a disclaimer?? No, I didn't think so. Your honor...the prosecution rests and will enjoy seeing Al Gore stripped of his false accolaides, rotting in jail where he belongs, and all his stolen monies returned to their rightful owners....the taxpaying citizens of the United States.

    Good day !!!!! Hot enough for ya??

  22. #22
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: huge lawsuit over 'carbon credits' sellers ...

    more media commentary on this subject ...

    (snip)"Of course, for those that are interested, Nobel Laureate Gore was invited to speak at this conference -- was even offered his normal fee to attend! -- but refused. As reported Monday by Anthony Watts, one of the conference speakers (emphasis added):

    I was surprised to learn that Al Gore had been offered an opportunity to address this conference, and his usual $200,000 speaking fee and expenses were met, but that he declined.

    I also know that invitations went out to NASA GISS principal scientists Dr. James Hansen, and Dr. Gavin Schmidt weeks ago as evidenced by their writeup of the issue on their blog, RealClimate.org a week or so ago.

    They have declined the formal invitation sent, even though it would be easy for them to attend, given that NASA GISS is located just a few blocks away at Columbia University.

    Since recent polls indicate that about 50% of Americans remain unconvinced that global warming is a serious issue, it would seem this would be a perfect place for Mr. Gore, Dr. James Hansen, and Dr. Gavin Schmidt to bridge the crevasse.

    Exactly, Anthony. Sadly, these folks don't want to speak to the half of the nation not buying into their junk science, for it is so easily exposed as such, and that would bring an end to the fraud.

    Of course, one has to wonder how all those that do believe in this myth feel about the fact that the leaders of their cause not only refuse to debate the issue, but won't even attend a conference dealing with it."(snip)

    from


    additional comments ...

    - the charge specifically mentioned would be alleged fraud on the part of 'carbon credits' traders

    - nearly 50% of Americans does not constitute a micro-mini percentage

  23. #23
    Jay Zeno
    Guest

    Default Re: huge lawsuit over 'carbon credits' sellers ...

    You're not going to get any mileage from me in decrying Al Gore or any weighted propaganda film, whether it's his movie, or one of Michael Moore's pieces, or a Mel Gibson religious soliloquy. Whether Mr. Gore declined because he had another engagement or because he was afraid is simply not relevant to me.

    Arguing carbon credits or Kyoto isn't all that relevant to me (as if anyone cares about what I think), either. If we're looking for change in our impact on the environment, we don't need clever little artifices. We need true change.

    I agree that the jury is out on a lot of the ultimate causes and effects of warming, although to repeat ad nauseam, you can't take billions of tons of carbon out of the ground and put them into the air without expecting something to happen. And for all we know, perhaps the mass melting going on will add cold to the planet's megacurrents and actually cause overall cooling.

    But the fact that people are willing to stick their fingers in their ears (or eyes) and say, "Warming, ain't happening, no no no no," and then later on, with the AC cranked up, say, "But humans aren't causing it," just isn't too convincing of their posture.

  24. #24
    Veteran Member LadyLuck's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    521
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: huge lawsuit over 'carbon credits' sellers ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Tauries View Post
    Pardon me if I point out this page in your supposed . Since I am now having serious doubts about your literacy I will quote for you from your source; “NERC gives no warranty as to the quality or accuracy of the information or its suitability for any use.”

    Care to explain why these supposed "scientific facts" have such a disclaimer?? No, I didn't think so. Your honor...the prosecution rests and will enjoy seeing Al Gore stripped of his false accolaides, rotting in jail where he belongs, and all his stolen monies returned to their rightful owners....the taxpaying citizens of the United States.

    Good day !!!!! Hot enough for ya??

    Absurd! That is a link to a disclaimer page for the British Atmospheric Data Center and the Natural Environment Research Council websites. Neither of which appear in my response to your request for information. Besides that those websites do not even look the least bit familiar to me so I doubt I have linked to them as source material, ever.

    Plus I don’t go around singing the praises of Gore or his movie. You’re simply making sh*t up as you go. Just trying to create a bunch of tawdry drama. Which is so boring.

    To quote a friend of mine- save your drama for your mama because I “ain’t” got time! Later, loser

  25. #25
    Tauries
    Guest

    Default Re: huge lawsuit over 'carbon credits' sellers ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Stoner View Post
    Talk about laughable.
    Quoted for truth!! To be honest I had not read any of the IPCC's

    propaganda, now I wish I had sooner...this is hilarious!! (Actually

    scary when you think that the worlds' gooberments and brain dead yet asininely arrogant sheeple

    like our lucky lady believe this garbage)

    Quoted from the IPCC's mission statement;

    "The IPCC was established to provide the decision-makers and others

    interested in climate change with an objective source of information

    about climate change. The IPCC does not conduct any research nor does

    it monitor climate related data or parameters
    ."

    "The IPCC is a scientific body: the information it provides with its

    reports is based on scientific evidence and reflects existing

    viewpoints within the scientific community."

    Guffaw!! Pardon??? Let me get this straight...the IPCC claims on their

    mission statement to be a "scientific body" that "does not conduct any

    research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters." yet

    will be used in determining the policies of world governments???

    Ok ok...sorry my ribs are collapsing from laughing...in their defense

    they do get their scientific research from where?? You guessed it!!

    From sources such as the NERC that give their data and conclusions "no

    warranty as to the quality or accuracy of the information or its

    suitability for any use
    .” Oh my fricken god!! It hurts...it hurts...I wish I had come up with

    this scam!!

    Thank you Lucky Lady, I needed a good laugh today!! However....since you are either Tara_SW under a new name,or just a clueless yet insulting newb with an I.Q. just over an average hockey game score that displays no respect for their elders, Imma gonna have to put you on ignore until you learn how to play nice with the other children or get professional help for your malfunctioned melon...I wish you good LUCK with that!!

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. qualifies for credits?
    By ukmissy in forum Camming Connection
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-14-2011, 11:54 AM
  2. etsy sellers?
    By LoverCam in forum Other Work
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 07-17-2011, 07:22 PM
  3. champange sellers?? help
    By babybambi08 in forum Hustle Hut
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 10-07-2008, 06:27 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-07-2007, 02:05 PM
  5. Replies: 20
    Last Post: 09-13-2006, 09:29 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •