Greetings from American Forum

[Jacob Hall]

My name is Jacob Hall, and while this message isn't strictly an introduction, it certainly doubles as one. Before I begin, I'll say that it is not my intention to offend the owner of this forum with this proposal, but I don't believe it will offend either.

I am working on an online project called American Forum that aims to achieve two things. The first aspect of the project concerns an information database of issues that are important or relevant in the United States. Such issues would fall into categories such as social, economic, and environmental, which would include (you guessed it) global warming. The goal of this side of American Forum is to provide extensive and accurate details about issues in a way that does not overwhelm a casual reader. The "coverage" of specific issues is NOT aimed at promoting any one side, but rather to explain the background behind all opinions on the matter and to present ALL the facts.

The second goal of the project is to create an environment where US citizens can have an open dialogue about these issues, and discuss their concerns. There are many far-off goals of the forum side of the website, including the ability for people to craft (with the aid of paid legal staff) and support (via online signature) legislation at the state and federal level.

What this has to do with these forums I will now explain. I've begun working on this project only in the past few weeks, and I've started with global warming. It took me only a few hours of work before I realized that the effort that would have to go into providing a full and balanced account of global warming could take one person months or very easily years. I am here, therefore, to offer a proposition to the members of this forum.

As I mentioned above, it is not the goal of American Forum to advance the agenda of one side of any particular issue, but rather to explain why each side believes what it does, in order to reach the always out-of-reach common ground compromise that democracy lives on. For the articles concerning global warming, that means providing a full account of the science that continues to sustain skeptical attitudes towards AGW, and ultimately to make that science and those doubts answerable before the AGW advocates (and vice versa) in a professional and intelligent forum. The goal is to create a forum for dialogue where skeptics and advocates can talk to each other, not past each other.

My request, then, is a sort of call to arms to the users of this forum. I'm trying to put together a group of people to collaborate on a series of global warming articles that are factually accurate and representative of skeptics as well as advocates, which is where I'm asking for your help. This will be an intensive effort that requires expertise and objectivity. Anyone who agrees to help will be committing themselves to helping not only explain the opinions of skeptics, but what science there is to back those opinions up, what the implications of that science are, and perhaps most crucially be able to see what limitations exist that prevent said science from being a universal disproof of AGW. It, as I have come to realize, is not the work of amateurs, and I am hoping for people with professional, or at the very least academic, experience in the fields of science that concern global warming, namely meteorology, geology, oceanography, chemistry, physics, and astro-physics. I want to be honest with anyone who considers the offer; it will involve amassing dozens of scientific sources and fact checking them, often alongside AGW advocates.

My last pitch to you is that this project, American Forum, has intrigued everyone I've spoken to about it. I think it represents something that people are hungry for in the information age, which is good information. I can spend a week researching the skepticism behind global warming, then another week researching the proof behind it, and find "conclusive" proof the whole way along. What I feel many people want is a place where they know they can go to see all the information without having to worry that it will be undercut a week later by some new fact, and they want to do it without having to spend five years wading through myth, vested interests, and half-truth sources. Global warming is an issue that seems important to most of you, and though this is an offer for volunteer work, I hope you see it as a chance to expose the truth of the issue on a medium that will hopefully be used by millions some day.

Thanks for sticking with me this far, and I'm eager to hear your thoughts.

Jacob Hall

[Sunsettommy]

Quote:As I mentioned above, it is not the goal of American Forum to advance the agenda of one side of any particular issue, but rather to explain why each side believes what it does, in order to reach the always out-of-reach common ground compromise that democracy lives on. For the articles concerning global warming, that means providing a full account of the science that continues to sustain skeptical attitudes towards AGW, and ultimately to make that science and those doubts answerable before the AGW advocates (and vice versa) in a professional and intelligent forum. The goal is to create a forum for dialogue where skeptics and advocates can talk to each other, not past each other.

It is an interesting goal to work on.But have you been traveling around the internet in recent months? Talking past one another is the common denominator.

I am the Owner and Administrator here and a Moderator at a Blog I will not name,by the blog owner's request.I have also been active in a couple of forum boards replying people of the AGW believing camp.

It is my experience that too many times people who believe in the AGW hypothesis are enamored with the ad homonyms,thread disruption and flat out trolling with deliberate provocative commentary.To be part of any sustained meaningful debate.

I personally find most AGW believers to be ignorant,dishonest people who generate a lot of irrational replies trying ineptly to defend a hypothesis long dead.

Try engaging them on the "hotspot" (caused by Greenhouse gases) topic the IPCC predicted back in 2001 would be found.You will discover how many of them try rationalizing away the empirical evidence that the postulated "hotspot" has never been found.

I have personally showed them page and quotes from the IPCC report on it.Then to show them what the satellite data shows,that it is NOT there! They say it is there,and of course the satellite data is not what they use.They play word games instead hoping you tire of their obvious deflections and go away.

I have a general reputation on the internet of not tolerating that type of behavior.The very reason there are no AGW believers joining here.Not only that,I prefer the DISCUSSION method over that of debate.

I have let many AGW believers know about my forum and not a single one will join.Why do you think such people prefer commenting on skeptical blogs over forums?

Since there are no AGW believers here.It is a restful place where discussion are ongoing at their own slow pace.Maybe that is what it should be anyway.A place for skeptics to come here knowing they will not have to put up with baloney from the AGW believing camp.

[Jacob Hall]

Intriguing response, Sunsettommy.

I am fully confident that if I replaced every instance of "believer" in your post with "skeptic," and the anecdote about the hotspot with an anecdote about.. the dimming effect, then it would closely resemble how the typical global warming believer feels about global warming skeptics. And I am not suggesting that you are ignorant or dishonest, merely that you may share more in common with believers than you first thought. It is not uncommon to hear them describe skeptics as backwards, irrational, and in denial, maintaining opinions "long dead." How, if these opinions (and more the fact they are based on) are not measured against each other side-by-side rather than from afar, is anyone supposed to pull the grain of truth from the information?

Between you and me and the rest of your forum, I AM a believer of global warming, and I feel, based on very little technical knowledge, that the science by which skeptics maintain their beliefs would not stand up to the science by which believers make theirs. I admit that I know very little of either, however, and that I could be wrong. My reason is quite simply that it is absurd to imagine that so many people who make a living out of scientific study could actually be duped into accepting AGW if any fact that disproved it were demonstrable. While I don't deny that it is possible that the vast majority of scientists are wrong, I think it highly unlikely.

As to the absence of believers on your forum, the name doesn't suggest that it is anything more than a medium for people with biased opinions about global warming based on preconceptions that exist despite evidence to the contrary. I'm not saying it is precisely that, but someone of a less neutral mentality would probably have little reason to linger when there are entire Gore bashing boards.

Mostly though, I find the suggestion that all AGW believers are crazed, uninformed idiots to be at fault. They are people who have seen and heard things that led them to a conclusion. You have seen and heard things that lead them to a different one. You must appreciate that for every global warming SKEPTIC who is interested in an intelligent discussion, there are ten who go around trolling on believers. The same ratio of intelligence to trollishness probably exists in the believer camp.

The goal of American Forum is to bring the skeptics and the believers of your caliber, those with a preference for discussion, to the same place.

---

I've just thought of a brilliant quote that applies to the whole global warming thing. It comes from a fantasy novel called Wizard's First Rule, which goes:

"People are stupid; given proper motivation, almost anyone will believe almost anything. Because people are stupid, they will believe a lie because they want to believe it's true, or because they are afraid it might be true. People’s heads are full of knowledge, facts, and beliefs, and most of it is false, yet they think it all true. People are stupid; they can only rarely tell the difference between a lie and the truth, and yet they are confident they can, and so are all the easier to fool."

In this case, there is obvious motivation for both sides. You either don't believe AGW because that would not be an inconvenience to your life-style, or you do believe it because you are scared by its potential effects. Regardless of how many people claim to be skeptical or certain of AGW, only a small percentage do so from a fully informed perspective. Just an interesting thought.

[Derek]

Hello Jacob,
I will not go on too long, but, you do seem to miss one important aspect of the global warming "debate".
Namely paid for advocacy.

Have a look around and see who is paid by whom to promote AGW.
Compare this with who is paid by whom to be "skeptical" of AGW.

In my experience AGW advocates are mainly, and obviously paid by government or advocacy groups to be "believers", their jobs and reputations depend upon it.
How often is the appeal to authority hammered "home"....

"Skeptics", and these are in several distinct groups now, are mostly retired, unpaid, and / or amateur.

I think most would see quite clearly, if "we" remove the appeal to authority from the equation,
which side in the "climate debate" is the more likely to be biased, and organised...

[Richard111]

Hello Jacob. Interesting project you have set for yourself. I hope we get to see it up and running.

SST has covered the operation of this forum and the point Derek made gets me dead to rights... I am retired, unpaid and amateur.

Concerning AGW I am a sceptic and always have been from the first instance I became aware of the "debate". I am also a cupboard "greenie". I believe in conservation and apply it in my home life. I have strong beliefs about that which run counter to the gospels of WWF and Greenpeace such that any known member will never be invited to my home. But all that is of no concern on this thread.

About myself. My working life was spent mostly as an electronics bench technician ending as a computer network manager. (Novell Netware no less) I held a PPL for a while some fourty years ago and as part of the requirements I needed to know something about weather and climate.

I have travelled and lived and worked in both hemispheres over seventy years of my life as well as on the equator so have personal experience of what weather is like in different climates.

All of this made me very doubtfull about "greenhouse gas" tipping points and "positive feedback". So I searched the web looking for information and I found it. I concentrated on "radiative feedback", especially of carbon dioxide, CO2, and arrived at a fairly simple explanation that I use to support my scepticism in any discussions and usually win over people who are prepared to listen.

You can see my ideas posted on this forum in the Layman Struggles thread. So far I have not read anything that convinces me carbon dioxide MUST be, or even needs to be, regulated.

Richard

[JohnWho]

(08-23-2010 08:07 PM)Jacob Hall Wrote:  Between you and me and the rest of your forum, I AM a believer of global warming, and I feel, based on very little technical knowledge, that the science by which skeptics maintain their beliefs would not stand up to the science by which believers make theirs. I admit that I know very little of either, however, and that I could be wrong. My reason is quite simply that it is absurd to imagine that so many people who make a living out of scientific study could actually be duped into accepting AGW if any fact that disproved it were demonstrable.

(Bold mine for emphasis)

If you "know very little of either", then does that not imply that your opinion lacks a strong basis? From what I've found, the more I've learned about both positions, the more I see that the "skeptical" position has more credence.

Remember, the bottom line on the two positions is whether anthropogenic CO2 emissions are having an effect on the climate - either a warming or cooling of the atmosphere - and if it is having an effect exactly how much of an effect is it having?

If you stay on that point and don't get sidetracked by all the attempts to deflect from it, you'll find that many more scientists agree with this statement:

"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth"

than there are saying that

"Human release of carbon dioxide is definitely causing catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disrupting the Earth's climate".

Quote:While I don't deny that it is possible that the vast majority of scientists are wrong, I think it highly unlikely.

Therein lies one of the problems to understanding this issue. The "vast majority" agree that the temperatures have been rising since the end of the Little Ice Age but that same "vast majority" does not agree on what exactly is causing the rise in temperatures. Those claiming a "consensus" of the "vast majority" are really the "half-vast minority" attempting to mislead the rest of us. It is indeed unfortunate that much of the world's main stream media is part of this group and their influence sways many opinions.

[Richard111]

a vast majority of scientists, eh?

The IPCC reports claimed 2,500 scientists and this was questioned.

I wonder if we ever learn how many scientists support AGW as a firm belief or are simply trying to ensure their continued employment.

The fact that some scientists have lost tenure for questioning AGW does not improve my hopes for the future of humanity on this planet.

Anyway, let us non-scientists discus this subject openly.

[JohnWho]

(08-24-2010 09:37 AM)Richard111 Wrote:  a vast majority of scientists, eh?

The IPCC reports claimed 2,500 scientists and this was questioned.

Richard111 -

I believe it claims that 2500+ scientists contributed to the report, but does it claim that all 2500+ agree with the conclusions of the report?

[Jacob Hall]

I didn't make a strong (read: scientifically based) defense of global warming because I don't command a firm knowledge of science.

The notion that we should doubt all expert sources precisely because they are experts who are (allegedly) motivated only by profit is... rather peculiar. Exxon Mobil created a climate panel for the specific purpose of countering the IPCC. How objective do you think a panel that was funded by one of the largest producers of hydro-carbon fuels is going to be? To quantitatively prove that the majority of national science institutes, academics, and science professionals are all in cahoots forcing this sham theory on the world so they can keep getting paychecks requires more than the vaguely outlined notion that they are being funded by governments for the sake of votes. If the name of the conspiracy is corrupt science paid for by vested interests, don't you think the conglomerate of oil, car, and coal companies would have put up a much harder fight than they did? I mean, it took the US government thirty years to get a simple warning on cigarette packs, and that was against one industry that was less wealthy than any of the three listed above are today.

In the end though, I don't REFUSE to believe the possibility that all the scientists from New Zealand to Britain who are paid for the stated purpose of being objective about global warming are corrupt. All I'd ask is that you demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that a profit-motivated bias exists in a substantial number of them, and that they disregard patent facts that would invalidate their conclusions. I have yet to hear anything that amounts to more than half-truth on the topic.

And that is why I'm here. Not to debate these points with you, but to ask for your help in organizing them into easily accessible articles. If there is evidence to undermine AGW out there, actual evidence that would silence any rational believer, then I am eager to hear it. Conjecture, out of context anecdotes, unquantified observations, these contribute nothing to the search for truth.

You all have your opinions, which is fine by me. I'm not here to change anyone's mind. I'm here to ask for your help, and to challenge you to account for your own beliefs in a way that a rational person couldn't doubt.

---

EDIT-

I don't want to get drawn into a debate, but the notion that the scientific consensus only exists among people who are paid to support it is peculiar. Skeptics claim that there are scientists out there who doubt global warming, and that there are more than a few, but I've never seen them. Who are they? Where are they? The only place they ever seem to exist is "not in the IPCC."

I ask in earnest.

[JohnWho]

Uh, Jacob -

I'm reminded of the "consensus" that the world was flat, too.

Many "scientists of the day" went along with that concept and I'm sure we would all agree that it was the consensus.



Sadly, what motivates many modern day scientists is their need to survive and provide for their families. To this end, going along with a "consensus" that brings them financial gain is a strong incentive.

In any event, like I said "...the bottom line on the two positions is whether anthropogenic CO2 emissions are having an effect on the climate - either a warming or cooling of the atmosphere - and if it is having an effect exactly how much of an effect is it having?"

Discussing the motivation of the scientists does not address this question.

[Jacob Hall]

JohnWho Wrote:Sadly, what motivates many modern day scientists is their need to survive and provide for their families. To this end, going along with a "consensus" that brings them financial gain is a strong incentive.

This is a straw man argument. Pretend for a moment that global warming is true and that its worst projections are possible; wouldn't they serve their own survival just as well by raising awareness of this threat?

You seem to say only the best paid scientists support the consensus and therefore only the scientists that support the consensus can be paid well. That's circular logic that in no way defines the nature or scale of profit-motivated bias among the scientific community.

Quote:In any event, like I said "...the bottom line on the two positions is whether anthropogenic CO2 emissions are having an effect on the climate - either a warming or cooling of the atmosphere - and if it is having an effect exactly how much of an effect is it having?"

Discussing the motivation of the scientists does not address this question.

Agreed.

[JohnWho]

(08-24-2010 01:35 PM)Jacob Hall Wrote:  

JohnWho Wrote:Sadly, what motivates many modern day scientists is their need to survive and provide for their families. To this end, going along with a "consensus" that brings them financial gain is a strong incentive.

This is a straw man argument. Pretend for a moment that global warming is true and that its worst projections are possible; wouldn't they serve their own survival just as well by raising awareness of this threat?

Of course, IF it were true.

Quote:You seem to say only the best paid scientists support the consensus and therefore only the scientists that support the consensus can be paid well. That's circular logic that in no way defines the nature or scale of profit-motivated bias among the scientific community.

Well, in the case of the "climate science" concept, I believe you will find that it is true that the "best paid" are primarily supporting AGW.

If the conclusion you draw from this is that the AGW concept must be true, I direct you back to the "flat earth" situation.

"The earth must be flat because the best paid scientists of the day support this consensus."

Well, not exactly.

[Sunsettommy]

Jacob Hall,

it is not that simple.

The IPCC have not been honest with us about how many climate scientists actually worked on the IPCC reports.

Here is some sources that explains the real story based on what the IPCC themselves published:

The IPCC Can't Count
- Author and Reviewer numbers are wrong

PDF

Key quote,

Quote: Chapter 9...had 53 authors in total but more than 40 were part of a network of people who worked previously together. In direct contradiction to the IPCC's statements that the team of authors should have a wide range of views and experiences, most were climate modellers and there were many instances where several authors were associated with the same establishment...

The second draft of chapter 9...received comments from 55 people and 7 governments. Of these 62 only 5 reviewers explicitly endorsed the overall chapter...

Fifty-three authors and five reviewers are all that can be said to explicitly support the claim of a significant human influence on climate.

(p. 2)


This one below was written by Mike Hulme a noted AGW believer:

Climate Change: what do we know about the IPCC?

PDF

A key quote from the link,

Quote:Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous. That particular consensus judgement...is reached by only a few dozen experts in the specific field of detection and attribution studies; other IPCC authors are experts in other fields.

bold mine and found at page 10-11

Personally I would not be so quick to swallow what the Media or the IPCC states.They have been caught wrong too many times.

[JohnWho]

I believe you meant "Jacob Hall", SST.

[sarcasm]You sure the Media and the IPCC isn't right? After all, there are so many of them![/sarcasm]

[Sunsettommy]

Jacob Hall,

Here is another big reason why most skeptics are not besotted with the IPCC reports.They have been found to be less than credible too many times.

YOU have not been shown the following from the Media on just how unreliable the 2007 IPCC report really is.

I hope you care enough to look this over.

It is the skeptics themselves who have exposed the low level of quality control that were supposed to ensure that the 2007 IPCC report was based on sound peer reviewed papers and have been credibly examined by outside researchers in their respective fields.

This website led the way in showing how many papers that go into the 2007 IPCC report that are unverifiable,unreliable or bogus:

I bet you never seen or heard of this blog entry.

Climate Bible Gets 21 'F's on Report Card

EXCERPT:

21 of 44 chapters in the United Nations' Nobel-winning climate bible earned an F on a report card we are releasing today. Forty citizen auditors from 12 countries examined 18,531 sources cited in the report – finding 5,587 to be not peer-reviewed.

Contrary to statements by the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the celebrated 2007 report does not rely solely on research published in reputable scientific journals. It also cites press releases, newspaper and magazine clippings, working papers, student theses, discussion papers, and literature published by green advocacy groups. Such material is often called "grey literature."

LINK

Getting angry yet?

Beginning to understand why most skeptics are not happy about the biased and dishonest IPCC reports?

This LINK contains many more reports about the IPCC reports.About the fact that a large segment of are NOT based on peer reviewed papers at all.That a number UNPUBLISHED papers are included in the report are easily shown in the above link.

Sir you really have no idea just how poor the science of the AGW hypothesis really is and that their very few actual predictions published have utterly failed.One of them is the "hot spot" as predicted in the IPCC report.

The hypothesis remains in the realm of climate models.

[JohnWho]

I believe you meant "Jacob Hall" again, SST.

[Sunsettommy]

(08-24-2010 02:48 PM)JohnWho Wrote:  I believe you meant "Jacob Hall", SST.

[sarcasm]You sure the Media and the IPCC isn't right? After all, there are so many of them![/sarcasm]

He he,

I actually hesitated on the name the first time but went ahead and used John anyway.

Thanks for the correction.

[Sunsettommy]

From post #3:

Quote:I am fully confident that if I replaced every instance of "believer" in your post with "skeptic," and the anecdote about the hotspot with an anecdote about.. the dimming effect, then it would closely resemble how the typical global warming believer feels about global warming skeptics. And I am not suggesting that you are ignorant or dishonest, merely that you may share more in common with believers than you first thought. It is not uncommon to hear them describe skeptics as backwards, irrational, and in denial, maintaining opinions "long dead." How, if these opinions (and more the fact they are based on) are not measured against each other side-by-side rather than from afar, is anyone supposed to pull the grain of truth from the information?

The problem is that those AGW believers are now backpeddaling in their absurd explanation on why the predicted "hot spot" has failed to be found.

The IPPC report made clear that only GHG's could produce it.Therefore we should be able to find in the tropical atmosphere.

It is not there!

Here is one blog report based on actual and referenced sources from the IPCC report,Radio sonde and the satellite data of the region in question:

How John Cook unskeptically believes in a hotspot (that thermometers can’t find)


EXCERPT:

John Cook might be skeptical about skeptics, but when it comes to government funded committee reports, not so much.

The author of “skeptical science” has finally decided to try to point out things he thinks are flaws in The Skeptics Handbook. Instead, he misquotes me, shies away from actually displaying the damning graphs I use, gets a bit confused about the difference between a law and a measurement, unwittingly disagrees with his own heroes, and misunderstands the climate models he bases his faith on. Not so “skeptical” eh John? He’s put together a page of half-truths and sloppy errors and only took 21 months to do it. Watch how I use direct quotes from him, the same references, and the same graphs, and trump each point he tries to make. His unskeptical faith in a theory means he accepts some bizarre caveats while trying to whitewash the empirical findings.

In the end, John Cook trusts the scientists who collect grants funded by the fear-of-a-crisis and who want more of his money, but he’s skeptical of unfunded scientists who ask him to look at the evidence and tell him to keep his own cash.

LINK with the charts

Read comment # 141 written by the blog owner.

My own comments # 173,#176,#177,#223,and #259

Without that badly needed "hotspot" the AGW hypothesis can not get a credible verification.It is not a pretty sight.

[Sunsettommy]

From post #3 again:

Quote:Between you and me and the rest of your forum, I AM a believer of global warming, and I feel, based on very little technical knowledge, that the science by which skeptics maintain their beliefs would not stand up to the science by which believers make theirs.

What!

It is the people who make a scientific claim (the AGW hypothesis) to back it up with science research.

The IPCC report in one such venue they use and you are learning how screwed up it is and how few scientists in the relevant climate research fields actually participated in the report.

Skeptics from all corners of the world only has to point out the flaws of the hypothesis and that is good enough.The many flaws have long ago been pointed out and the AGW believers have failed utterly to explain them.

Quote:I admit that I know very little of either, however, and that I could be wrong. My reason is quite simply that it is absurd to imagine that so many people who make a living out of scientific study could actually be duped into accepting AGW if any fact that disproved it were demonstrable. While I don't deny that it is possible that the vast majority of scientists are wrong, I think it highly unlikely.

Actually not that many climate scientists are supporting the IPCC reports or the AGW hypothesis.You have been reading and listening from the media too long uncritically.

This is not even all of the possibl papers either,but a list of those that are stable and verified.

Here is a LINK to this report that HUNDREDS of scientists are differing with the AGW hypothesis:

800 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming (AGW) Alarm

EXCERPT:

The following papers support skepticism of AGW or the negative environmental or economic effects of AGW. Addendums, comments, corrections, erratum, replies, responses and submitted papers are not included in the peer-reviewed paper count. These are included as references in defense of various papers. There are many more listings than just the 800 papers. This list will be updated and corrected as necessary.

Criticisms: All criticisms of this list have been refuted or a change made to correct the issue. Please see the notes following the list for defenses of common criticisms. I make every attempt to defend the list where possible, in many cases my comments correcting the misinformation stated about the list are deleted and I am blocked from replying. Please email me if you have any questions or need me to address something, populartechnology (at) gmail (dot) com.

[Sunsettommy]

From post #3:

Quote:As to the absence of believers on your forum, the name doesn't suggest that it is anything more than a medium for people with biased opinions about global warming based on preconceptions that exist despite evidence to the contrary. I'm not saying it is precisely that, but someone of a less neutral mentality would probably have little reason to linger when there are entire Gore bashing boards.

No it means that this is a SKEPTICAL forum.Just as ALL scientists are supposed to be skeptical over what they read.

There is only one area here where we do bash Al $$$ Gore.Who is a proven liar and hypocrite many times over.The forum for the most part discuss various science and political topics.

The creep just last month buys a multi million dollar mansion almost on the beach.The same person who has for years been screaming about catastrophic sea level rise over the next few decades.While he still owns a Mansion in Tennessee and has bought a massive Houseboat last year.

The hypocrite meanwhile tells us to reduce our carbon footprint lifestyle and get poorer by sending to All and his friends $$$ for purchasing worthless carbon offsets shares.This is a flim flam man who has millions of potential victims,because they are not skeptical of him or anyone else for that matter.

The same one who a couple months ago stated that the center of the earth is in millions of degrees temperature,while he was pitching for geothermal energy.

The same man who lost a court case because his "science" report contains many errors and can not support many of its claims credibly.

I despise the man because he is vile and a thief.