asking Al Gore to run in 2008!
Will Gore Have a Future Court Date? If So, Will Gore Lose ...Again?
Posted May 2nd, 2008 by Beforeitstoolate
A veteran US meteorologist and global warming skeptic says a bid to sue Al Gore for fraud over his claims about man-made climate change is gathering momentum.
John Coleman, who founded the Weather Channel in 1982, proposed taking the former vice president and other environmental activists to court at a conference in New York in March.
Since then he has "received thousands and thousands of emails with lots of support", he says. "And thousands of these people want to donate to a legal fund to sue Al Gore."
Mr Coleman hopes court could be the venue to settle the debate over what he calls “the biggest scam in history” and expose global warming alarmism as "silly hype".
He claims the mainstream media ignores what those skeptical of man-made global warming have to say while the educational community does not debate the issue.
"Without the media and the educational institutions, what resource do we have to counter these people? We are not going to be heard unless we can find a place to be heard and a court of law might be a place where we would get a fair hearing."
Mr Coleman, who would like to see all proponents of global warming including those who sell carbon credits challenged, added:
"If the judge had a non-political scientific approach in reaching a decision we would win the lawsuit. It’s something that is in the works. I have no announcement to make about it now but numerous people are involved and it remains a valid possibility."
Mr Coleman predicts it will take "20 more years of weather data to totally wipe out the silliness". In the meantime he continues to argue that evidence of man-made global warming just isn’t there.
"It’s been 30 years since the whole global warming thing (began) and by this time the oceans should be rising and the ice caps should be pretty well melted, and none of that’s happening. Despite all the hype last year about the North polar ice cap melting away, it’s frozen up bigger than it’s been frozen up in 20 years at this moment. So, where in the heck’s the beef? Where’s the warming?"
It should be an interesting showdown if the skeptics get their day in court.
- Beforeitstoolate's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Be part of the Draft Gore '08 campaign!
This guy Coleman is just a TV weatherman.
He is simply an entertainer and businessman and has nothing to do with science other than reading the information provided to him by his teleprompter.
Just another talking head and he's not even remotely telegenic or any other superficial hype used to justify being on TV.
Puleeze try to put this BS back in the tube from whence it came.
If this case ever gets to court I will be looking for Judge Judy to throw it out with one of her dismissive comments.
Gee, for a minute I thought
Gee, for a minute I thought you were describing Gore, but wait maybe you are:
As you said, Coleman is an "...an entertainer and businessman and has nothing to do with science..."
Lets look if Gore passes your critique of Coleman: Gore is an ex-politician, does not have any type of formal training in climate science, is now a businessman and he must also be an entertainer since he has starred in a movie, many people find his views on global warming to be very funny and he know dresses like the late Johnny Cash.
If Coleman's views are to be dismissed on those grounds, then Gore's should be as well.
The principle of Coleman's possible lawsuit is that a company that Gore has an ownership interest in is selling carbon offsets that are useless and serve no purpose thus are fraudulant. Has it ever occurred to anybody that Gore's activities as global warming activist/spokesman are nothing more than a sales pitch for financial interests that he has a vested interest in that will benefit from the hysteria of trying to solve this non-issue?
As far as there being
an element of doubt in some people's minds regarding the man-made Global warming issue - if such a lawsuit ever came to trial; wouldn't it be great if the whole thing was televised? This could be the equivalent of the Scopes monkey trial or the O.J. Simpson case.
If this was a high profile case
that presented all sides of the argument, how do you think the judge would rule if he/she took into account prevailing scientific majority opinion on this? Do you think the North-West passage will be open again this summer & the Russians are still wanting to drill for oil in the Arctic ocean?
The Judge would key on the
The Judge would key on the fact that it is OPINION not facts that the global warmers always key on...It is the opinion of global warmers that increases in CO2 result in increases in temperature. Is it possible that the opposite may actually be occurring?
And the judge would have to take into account that correlation does not prove or equal causation. For example, their are more obese children today than say 100 years ago and their are also more children that are immunized than say 100 years ago. Are we to assume that immunizations cause obesity? Just because two variable may move in harmony with each does not mean that one drives the action of the other.
If the Judge is trying
to arrive at some kind of impartial decision, then in this scenario I suppose you'd have a number of expert witnesses (i.e. scientists who don't work for oil or tobacco companies) giving evidence for both sides of the argument based on their research. Given the data available I would feel confident about giving this guy his day in court & do you really think there's any scientists out there who seriously believe CO2 is causing Global cooling, apart from the ones who think cigarettes have no connection to lung cancer?
When I suggested that the
When I suggested that the opposite may be occurring, I didn't mean that CO2 accumulations would cause cooling. I meant is it possible that rises in CO2 levels follow rises in temps.
Does any scientific research
out there back this claim up, given that solar activity has largely been ruled out as the cause of any warming trend in recent years?
Glad you asked.
Yes there has been research of this. Solar activity is responsible for approximately 30% of Global warming in the last century according to the most recent work. Check out this site for a more rigorous explanation of this and other factors.
http://www.ucar.edu/news/features/climatechange/index.jsp