cite as: F. Bi. 2009. We are really, really suing Al Gore really, and here is a silly graph. Intl. J. Inact., 2:14–16
The inactivist New Zealand Climate ‘Science’ Coalition just made a grand announcement, with lots of pomp and fanfare, about the upcoming lawsuit against Al Gore or something. In Viscount Christopher Monckton’s own words:
There are now serious discussions afoot to lodge complaints against Gore to the federal financial and legal authorities, in that he fraudulently talks up the imagined “climate crisis” in the hope that he and his “green” investment corporation can profit by the baseless alarm that his falsehoods generate.
There are “serious discussions”… “now”? I wonder if this means that the “discussions” in the last 10 months or so about suing Al Gore were, in fact, not “serious”? (That sounds about right, since I can see no trace of the “notable attorneys” discussing this supposed case who Coleman claimed exist. In the meantime, you can sign the “Sue Us” Petition to get them to sue Al Gore for real.)
Also, here’s another gem from Monckton’s missive:
“No correlation”… but why do I see both long-term trends going up? Furthermore, given that CO2 concentrations (ppm) and global temperature anomalies (K) are in different units, isn’t it possible to scale the y-axis of the CO2 graph differently to make both trends match up visually? What’s the rationale for using this particular scaling, other than as a cheap visual trick to ‘prove’ there’s no correlation between temperatures and CO2?
Eli Rabett shows a different graph, based on climate sensitivity estimates.