Is that the same press release where they admit that they carry out whaling for research purposes only?

I suspect it may be both…

I heartily agree, I’d be happier with “so everyone around the world can find out what Al Gore has to say” or some other, you know, productive and beneficial for humanity aim. It’s all fine and well to be egalitarian with information but this is like walking on the grass just because there’s a sign.

This just appears to be raining on a guy’s parade because you can. I suppose it’s a bit better than “Al Gore asks us not to DDoS his website… but thanks to the internet we CAN! Get sending those badly formed packets, people” but it’s still throwing e-weight around for an eggshell.

Only if by “anti-climate” you mean “sensible people” and by “mad at them” you mean “make fun of him”.

Seriously, CO2 is a dangerous pollutant? People will believe anything.

I know your comment was not meant to be all-encompassing (you did say “most”); what you say is probably true. But I do like to point out that I and many others don’t wish to be linked to THAT crowd.

Three of the five researchers disagree with the UN’s IPCC view that recent warming is primarily the consequence of man-made industrial emissions of greenhouse gases.

My emphasis. Scarcely overwhelming, is it? And what’s with this word “admitting” you used? As though the Japanese government scientists — or rather, three of them — had decided to break ranks with the great IPCC conspiracy to, um, convince the world to not be quite so wasteful of energy and non-renewable resources… you know, as great conspiracies go, it lacks a bit of oomph, pzazz, panache, you know?

Besides, as you can read as well as anyone else, the JSER report does not say that global warming isn’t man-made, it says that the hypothesis is unproven, which isn’t the same thing at all.

To me, the whole matter comes down to which way you would rather be wrong. Deny anthropogenic global-warming and do nothing (except grasp for ever thinner intellectual straws to bolster your denial), and if you’re wrong the whole world is fucked. Or do something about CO2 levels, and if you’re later proven to have panicked over nothing, you’ve got a bit of egg on your face but the world is better off. Is your pride really more important than the world?

As much as Gore is an environmentalist, I’m going with capitalist.

And on that front, why the call to arms? I don’t really get the impression you’re interested in what Mr. Gore has to say as much as you are about proving to him technology has rendered such requests as ludicrous.

I suppose he’s relying on a crowd of 4,000 paid attendees to agree: you wanna hear what he had to say, you pay the entrance fee. Or rent An Inconvenient Truth.

Your call to arms comes across to me as a bit douchey.

@Antinous / Moderator
No, of course not, they eat the whales too. The Japanese have been whaling since something like the 1200′s (if memory serves). In their own words:

“We cannot agree [that me must stop whaling]. Asking Japan to abandon this part of its culture would compare to Australians being asked to stop eating meat pies, Americans being asked to stop eating hamburgers and the English being asked to go without fish and chips.

Attitudes toward animals are a part of national cultures. No nations should try to impose their attitudes on others.

Anti-whaling countries regard whales as sacred, and want the ban on whaling to continue on the grounds that a humane killing method is not ensured or that whaling itself is unethical.”

from: http://www.whaling.jp/english/qa.html

Does that include stoning adulteresses? Or does your moral relativism have limits?

Doesn’t unintentional irony count?

Well, it’s not “the Japanese” that have said this, it’s what, three researchers? Why have you discussed the Japan Society of Energy and Resources, but left out the Japan Agency for Marine Earth Science and Technology, who actually do climate modeling (with one of the most powerful models in the world)?

“We project global warming with the use of this model based on future scenario of human activities.”

http://www.jamstec.go.jp/e/about/research/prediction.html

Anyhow, why do you believe that it’s a scam?

#29 If there were only something like http://www.petitionproject.org/ …

You do realize that this is an extension of the infamous Oregon Petition, right? It’s had the cast from M*A*S*H on it, Geri Halliwell PhD twice (presumably once for each PhD), companies have signed it (as in, having the company’s name as a signatory), it has been found to be filled with those who have no expertise in climate science (e.g. economists, dentists, etc.) the deceased and those who have no idea that they’re on it. When the Heartland Institute invited all of the scientists on the list to come forward, only 19 showed up (and even they weren’t all climate scientists).
It’s a little odd also that, if there are ~31,000 dissenting scientists that they basically don’t publish anything about this in the scientific journals.

#31 Al Gore is a fact-challenged blow-hard.

How so?

These 4000 attendees are going to be told the secrets of ManBearPig.

Is he half man and half bearpig?

Or is he half bear and half manpig?

Damned limited seating!

Fair enough.

An argument from incredulity: Logic Fail.

Anyway, to drag things back to the point: really, you and 31,478 scientists (including 9,029 with PhDs!) seem to have missed the point with petitionproject.org. Science isn’t a democratic process. If they’ve got a solid scientific basis for agreeing with all the points in the petition, let’s see the science, not the signatures. Let’s see the equivalent of the IPCC report, showing either that there isn’t a rise in CO2, that the rise cannot cause an increase in the greenhouse effect, or that this increase is not happening.

Science is a Darwinist struggle: you earn your laurels as a scientist by proving other scientists wrong. There are reputations to be earned here, what are these scientists (many with PhDs!) doing signing petitions when they could be showing that the greenhouse effect is discontinuous, for example, that inbetween the 30-odd Kelvin that CO2 adds to Earth’s surface temperature and the 500K that the thicker concentration adds to Venus’ surface temperature the greenhouse effect just stops for some reason.

That three-years-old opinion piece from the Telegraph ignores the global warming trends over the last century or so, instead concentrating only on the negative fluctuations. Is that good science, picking only the data that lets you ignore the possible consequences?

How much rain should fall before you decide to reinforce the levées? How many sub-prime mortgages should you allow to be marked AAA before you call for re-regulation? How much climate change should you ignore before you decide to do something about it?