Fraud By Any Other Name...

An interesting read by an Australian climatologist.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24036736-7583,00.html

There is within it an idea we should expand upon... he suggests that the Australian Labour Party should tread lightly here because the consequences of their being wrong, which is looking more and more likely every day, would lead to their being non-electable in the future.

Hmmmm.  Having been a bit of a student of class action lawsuits against evil corporations brought to their knees for fraud and deception, often times for nothing at all, ala Dow Corning, it seems like dangerous territory.  Could a class-action tort be brought to bear on Al Gore, so many of the non-profit anti-capitalist propogandists, and legislators who vote on the basis of this sleight of hand to defraud us all? 

Of course, government exempts itself from fraud liability... with the attendant standards towards veracity for those in government reflecting this clemency. In fact, it is unlikely that any agency head or legislator would last more than 4 weeks in the private sector because what is standard operating procedure WITHIN the Borg itranslates into prison time and shareholder lawsuit fodder in corporate America. 

But Al Gore, his corporations, the Friends of the Earth, and all the rest... massive damages?  Biggest ever, in fact?  $50 billion spent in the last 18 years and the conclusions are more and more suspect...

Consider that Nobel Laureate Gore in front of that impressive image in "inconvenient truth" showing us how global temperatures and CO2 concentrations mimic one another.  Causality, he showed and said.  Zooming in on the graph, though, the CO2 lags temperature by 800 years across the board... but he DIDN'T zoom on the graph.  He, how to best put this... Lied. Not in a GW Bush "I really think and hope these are WMD plants, because the CIA said they might be", or "Al Qaida has some folks in Iraq, so they are in cahoots" kinda lie.  No, Al laid a Billy Sol Estes fertilizer tank misdirect kinda LIE on all of us.  Temperature drives carbon uptake, not the other way around.  Mr. Gore is an expert.  He has won a Nobel Prize for his propog... I mean, expertise. Did he not know?  Was it an honest mistake?  C'mon.  Inconceivable. 

Had Mr. Gore been, say, a Tobacco Executive, and had he intentionally lied as clearly and distinctly about his product as he did in that movie in that one particular instance (soon to be an opera, I am told), he would be in jail, and his company or industry would be paying out, say, 250 billion in damages.  

Mr. Gore, with a lifetime of public service, believes, like most long-time public servants I encounter, that you and I are stupid and because of that, lying to us is alright, because we don't know any better.  We would be much happier if we just didn't question them so much.  As a marketing guy and a senate aide told me over beers one night in DC... there are two rules of (marketing) (politics).  The first is that the People Are Stupid.  The second is "See Rule Number One".  I am not kidding about this.

The damages of this particular lie are easy to quantify... 2% of the GDP.  That is what it is calculated to institute our useless cure to a unsolvable "problem". In fact, a lawsuit, or idea of one is not without precedence.  Several have been quoted, a young Kennedy representative a recent example (Patrick, perhaps? His generation of the bloodline is particularly unsuccessful), that Americans who voice their skepticism towards the, ahem, "purity" of massively funded research by those with an endgame agenda, and no, I don't mean the oil companies, should be sued or arrested.  For doubting!  This seems extreme to me.  Kind of Fascist.  Or National Socialist, if you get my drift.

This should interest a clever plaintiff attorney...

Comments

[Scott]

My research indicates Evans is not a climatologist, but a mathematician and electrical engineer. When you start to pull back the layers, you see the true nature of the fraud.

http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/DavidEvansbio.html

[on-the-rocks]

Are you suggesting Evans is a fraud or the AGW hysteria is a fraud?

Most of this AGW hysteria is based upon computer models, with which Evans seems experienced. If he has immersed himself in the subject for six years and it seems to him that what science is finding doesn't fit with what the models predicted, how is that fraudulent?

All of this fear mongering over carbon dioxide is about an atmospheric constituent that measures about 380 ppm, 0.038%.

There are plausible scientific explanations as to increased temperatures causing atmospheric carbon dioxide increases.

Vibrant, unfettered economies are what are needed to develop the less-polluting technologies of the future. Carbon (and other) taxes are just exercises in government power and will not yield progress in energy development.

[Scott]

Evans has no formal education in the field of climate. It seems fair to put into question his ability to make pronouncements regarding global warming. I do not question his ability to write computer code, but understanding climate change goes way beyond being on a team that writes code. Now he is being held up as an expert climatologist. I think this is a distinction with a difference

[Tiffany]

There's a lengthier version here: http://www.lavoisier.com.au

along with a list of his "evidence"

[on-the-rocks]

Good link, Tiffany.

On the subject of David Evans, one doesn't necessarily have to be a pedigreed climatologist to have valid, educated opinions. Has Evans himself claimed the mantle of "Climatologist"?

If others (besides Open Choke) have applied that designation to him, that is their issue. Open Choke used the lower case "c" in his use of "climatologist", perhaps to describe Evans in a broad sense. The use of that word should not be a major point of this discussion, we should instead focus upon the discussed issues.

Look at the way the MSM has portrayed Al Gore as an "expert". I suspect David Evans has a better grasp of the subject than Al Gore has. Has David Evans "milked" his skepticism for millions of dollars as Al Gore has "milked" his hysteria?

To restate a portion of my earlier comments:

"If he has immersed himself in the subject for six years and it seems to him that what science is finding doesn't fit with what the models predicted, how is that fraudulent?"

Looking beyond the labels, what is the problem with the presented "evidence"? I don't think he is calling it "proof". Evans has linked to other discussions of these issues.

The political power-grabbers want to "freeze" the climate discussions at a point that benefits their agendas and punish anyone that calls for further discussions.

The skeptics understand that science marches on towards a greater understanding of nature, a significant portion of which includes a greater study of climate history.

The skeptics understand that some of what we "knew" years ago has been superceded by more information and updated interpretations.

The skeptics are not the ones that want to shut down discussions and jail dissenting voices.

While remembering that carbon dioxide comprises 0.038% of the atmosphere, do the articles linked by David Evans seem scientifically plausible?

The education of a passionate scientist doesn't end with the reception of that final diploma.

There are distinct classes of scientists - field scientists and lab scientists and rarely do they agree on everything.

As a field geologist, my prejudice against lab scientists is that they are closed-in by the "virtual walls" of their controlled laboratory experiences and they don't see the messy world of nature. I think we understand them more than they understand us.

Maybe David Evans is one of those lab scientists that despite being trained in "laboratory stuff" (including computer modeling), he is open-minded enough to cross the divide and look at the real world of climate history and how recent history compares with the computer models.

[gonesouth150]

On the Subject of the Kennedy boys (Patrick et al. ) , I will say this about the clan!

First, I am oil & gas landman in South Texas who in 1997 did extensive research on a 30,000 acre 3-D sesmic shot in Kleberg County , Texas.

Back in the 1960's , their were 3 people who formed a company called MOKEEN OIL COMPANY , one of the parnters was JOE KENNEDY FROM MASS. The Company today has a address on Wall Street in New York City. That Company made a small (Probably Huge!) fortune on the discover of the Yeary Field in the early 1960s!

To listen to Ted Kennedy talk about the Wind Farms Prospect off the coast of Mass. and his massive rejections to it due the Kennedy (Mafi) clain claim that the Resort Beach House will not have a clear VIEW of the ocean! Grow Up!

Boot Liquor Dad who made a fortune in a Illegal business in Probition and then takes that illegal gain and rolls it into the EVIL oil & gas businees and make three times the fortune just make me throw up! (Today it called MONEY LAUNDERING!)

Anyone think 60 Minutes might do a story about this !

I don't think so!

Get A real Job Kennedy Boys!

Have Nice Day!