Weather Channel Founder: Sue Al Gore for Fraud
baraka
Posts: 1,268
Ran across this article and found it interesting. I didn't see a link here for it?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,337710,00.html
The founder of the Weather Channel wants to sue Al Gore for fraud, hoping a legal debate will settle the global-warming debate once and for all.
John Coleman, who founded the cable network in 1982, suggests suing for fraud proponents of global warming, including Al Gore, and companies that sell carbon credits.
"Is he committing financial fraud? That is the question," Coleman said.
"Since we can't get a debate, I thought perhaps if we had a legal challenge and went into a court of law, where it was our scientists and their scientists, and all the legal proceedings with the discovery and all their documents from both sides and scientific testimony from both sides, we could finally get a good solid debate on the issue," Coleman said. "I'm confident that the advocates of 'no significant effect from carbon dioxide' would win the case."
Coleman says his side of the global-warming debate is being buried in mainstream media circles. (click link above for rest of article)
So what do you guys think about this debate being forced into a court of law?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,337710,00.html
The founder of the Weather Channel wants to sue Al Gore for fraud, hoping a legal debate will settle the global-warming debate once and for all.
John Coleman, who founded the cable network in 1982, suggests suing for fraud proponents of global warming, including Al Gore, and companies that sell carbon credits.
"Is he committing financial fraud? That is the question," Coleman said.
"Since we can't get a debate, I thought perhaps if we had a legal challenge and went into a court of law, where it was our scientists and their scientists, and all the legal proceedings with the discovery and all their documents from both sides and scientific testimony from both sides, we could finally get a good solid debate on the issue," Coleman said. "I'm confident that the advocates of 'no significant effect from carbon dioxide' would win the case."
Coleman says his side of the global-warming debate is being buried in mainstream media circles. (click link above for rest of article)
So what do you guys think about this debate being forced into a court of law?
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
That was my first instinct, but are the courts equipped to handle such issues? What does a judge know about climatology? The science is very complicated.
On on hand, we might have all the most conclusive information presented publicly and we can make up our own minds from the most persuasive arguments. On the other hand, things that are accepted as evidence in court would get you beat up in a physics department..............by nerds.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
stack the judges and it doesn't matter
i thought conservatives were against this sort of 'abuse' of the legal system? they're always bitching about needless law suits and ppl sue to solve any problem...
but when are they consistent?
-florida recount; florida law said there had to be a recount but they fought it in court
-california recall; they cry when liberals try to take it to court saying you can't use the legal system to circumvent and state laws
if it were a fair trial for both sides i'd be all for it, but i don't think we'll hear both sides fairly, i think it will turn into the usual circus
can't they just have a conference or something?
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Hi Kabong!
Science is usually best settled by the scientific community. But, currently the debate on AGW cannot be held by the scientific community to the point that everyone comes to a general consensus.
A court case can go either way, good or bad. You presented a few 'bad' ones. But then there was the ID case in Dover, PA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District
Of course, there was a scientific consensus in this case. Climatology is complicated stuff compared to what is defined as science. The problem with AGW is that 'experts' are polarized. So depending on WHICH expert you pick, you know what he/she will say.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Science is usually decided by the scientific community. And still, what the majority of any one group can agree upon and get behind is often not the most visionary, front-running view. Sometimes one has to go outside the system one refers to in order to get perspective on said system.
I don't see this as "solving" the debate, and yet when people are held to support and back their view, often fine details can arise that may otherwise remain mystified creating illusions and distortions.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Hiya Baraka!
look at the majority of high profile court cases, they end up media circus'. it depends on who decides, if it's just one person or a stacked/conflicted interest on either side then it's useless other than for someone to push their agenda as 'truth'
probably unrealistic, but i think it would be better to just have a pretty open debate
otherwise it could be the same as saying 'but oj was found innocent!'
or 'the supreme court was right; there's no need to know what enron and other energy companies talked about w/ cheney or even who was there when he was working on our nations energy policy!'
and i'm not saying that just b/c i think we are fucking up the environment. there's no getting around that. stop arguing if it's warming, cooling, dimming....there's no debate that we are destroying the planet. the water, air, land...mostly poisoned or veeeeeery dirty and things need to change and i don't know that we should count on just taking baby steps on some things
Ice age coming
Ice age coming
Let me hear both sides
Let me hear both sides
Let me hear both
Ice age coming
Ice age coming
Throw it on the fire
Throw it on the fire
Throw it on the
We're not scaremongering
This is really happening
Happening
We're not scaremongering
This is really happening
Happening
Mobiles working
Mobiles chirping
Take the money run
Take the money run
Take the money
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
that last paragraph is what i'm worried about
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
By focussing on fine lines/details in court, I see room for truths to emerge. Granted, not many see or appreciate actual discernment of issues, and I don't believe such truths will become necessarily mainstream in the next, oh 20 years at least...but I for one would look forward to such an event. The actual outcome of the case may well be more of the usual mainstream distortions, and yet that's different than what I refer to.
edit: to clarify...I questioned how I wrote the last paragraph you refer to..it's not well-worded. What I mean is that without fine discernment distortions and illusions exist, as they are now. I feel that deeper prodding in a structured environment can create clarification for those with eyes to see and ears to hear.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/7037671.stm
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
I wonder what a judge would have decided if there was a lawsuit about the earth being the center of the universe in the time period when it was under debate. If the judge was biased politically at the outset, perhaps the universe would be different
If Mr Weather Channel wants to prove global warming is a hoax, it is pretty easy - prove it scientifically. Oh, that's right ... 99% of scientists are making this thing up for personal profit, while many of the very few who deny it is happening just happen to be getting funds from the worlds biggest CO2 emitters. A few peer reviewed papers would be much more effective than political debate, or hoping for a politically sympathetic judge.
that is impossible; most scientists rely on some sort of politics to support their work. Scientists have agendas and interests too.
I'm ready to declare Global Warming the most stupid issue in political history.
Why in the world would I want to "reduce my affect on the environment"?
The very definition of existence boils down to having an effect on the environment. In essence, you are telling me not to exist.
Sigh...this is the crap I'm talking about. You can't "destroy an entire planet". Go ahead, throw around all the nukes and trash we have. See what's left standing.
Ok...let me see if I understand what you are saying:
1. The environment is currently fit for human survival.
2. Co2 emissions and the concomitant increase in environmental temperatures make the environment less fit for human survival.
Given #1 and #2, Co2 emissions should be stopped.
Is that what you are saying?
I'm saying #2 could be true, and that its something we can't afford to be wrong about.
instead i get these stupid fucking forward emails about not buying gas for one day or boycotting exon and mobil.
#2 is absolutely not true. People get so crazy debating this part of it:
"Co2 emissions and the concomitant increase in environmental temperatures"
that they forget the horrible fallacy of this part of it:
"less fit for human survival"
Co2 emissions or, more aptly the application of technology, have made this world immensely more survivable than any other application of human ability. The horrible irony in these arguments is that people advocate limiting technology and its uses in the name of "human survival".
It isn't either/or. Clean/cheap power would be a great advance in technology. While there may not be as much profit as there are with finite resources, it would certainly make the air smell a little better, and be nice for most people who are not making a killing off of current dirty tech.
"Clean/cheap" power is not necessarily an "advance in technology". The cleanest, cheapest power in the world is contained in the use of your body alone. The use of your body alone is cheaper, cleaner, and a great way to lower survival rates.
Technologies such as fuel cells, solar power, wind power, and nuclear power all represent wonderful advances in technology. And we're seeing the use of some of those things grow as markets deem them more efficient overall in a given application. And such trends will continue so long as people allow them to.
Hehe...then there is profit, isn't there? Profit is not just measured in money. Please remember that the use of oil, the now villified non-cheap and non-clean power also represented an advance in terms of "making the air smell a little better" and represented an advance in terms of "nice for most people who are not making a killing off of current dirty tech".
If you want technology to advance, stop scheming and just get the fuck out of the way. That's how technology advances. But do not worship at the altar of technological advance while operating from such shortsighted and narrow perspectives.
so ... you don't care about the impacts of climate change?
I'm not sure I understand your question. I certianly "care" about the climate as it significantly impacts our lives. Furthermore, I recognize that climates change over time and that our climate is currently changing to some degree as a result of human activity. I don't know, however, if this means that I "care about the impacts of climate change" in the way you're asking.
then what is the crux of your position on climate change?
The crux of my position on climate change is as follows:
a) Human beings exist within an environment
b) That environment, in part, consists of weather patterns known as a climate
c) This climate exists as a non-static entity, meaning that it changes over time due to both "natural" factors as well as "unnatural" human factors.
d) The environment, including its climate, in no way serves nor inhibits human survival, by default. Human survival is entirely based on adapting to the environment given to us.
e) The primary mode of human adaptation is the application of technology.
Given this, I refuse the damn technology in the name of "human survival" as such logic is completely foolish. I certainly agree with others here and elsewhere that there are better technologies available to us that we are not as of yet employing on a large scale.
if you are living in the polar regions or in low-lying areas of undeveloped countries - survival has already been impacted by man-induced climate change ... the significance of the impacts will only continue to be more severe - sure, as one of the lucky ones (myself included0 living in north america - we can readily adapt however, much life (not just human) will not be able to ...
Absolutely! But if you actually cared about the ability of these people to adapt to climate change or climate in general, why aren't you actually working with them to employ technology instead of trying to force others to stop using technology or certain technologies??? Do you not recognize the fact that societies that employ advanced technology are, because of that employment, far less likely to suffer massive human loss as the result of environmental impact?
This is the ultimate foolishness of the global warming movement. They purport to care about the survival of people in threatened regions, but their proposed solution is only to make others equally as threatened. Regardless of what you do to the West's carbon footprint, people are going to continue to die en masse throughout this world as a result of climate impacts so long as they are living without the technologies that so many of you take for granted.
God forbid we ever have a real massive climate change. I have no idea what some of you would do.
who says we aren't trying to get them to adopt new technology ... the problem lies in that they are suffering the impacts of our excessiveness ...
you said earlier that you agreed that some technologies are worse then others ... that is the case right now ... i don't see why you or anyone should feel threatened when clearly our impact is far greater then any impact a solution might be ...
I don't see any attempts by the Global Warming community to advocate such things. I'm certainly interested in hearing what I'm missing.
You could easily flip this around and say they are suffering the impacts of their deficiencies. Both arguments would hinge on the concept that people have an obligation towards climate stasis, which is completely ludicrous.
Show me an area that is threatened by Global Warming and I'll show you an area that is already threatened by existing climates. Maintaining their climate as-is is not a solution to their threatened existence. Their own employment of technologies is.
This is a false absolute. The impact of capping world-wide carbon emissions could be completely catastrophic, depending on how far it goes. One need look no further than at the devestation of Hurricane Katrina to see what happens when people turn their backs on technology for the credo of environmental stasis.
I certainly agree that some technologies are worse than others. The fact of the matter is that the technologies you are employing today are better than the ones that preceded them. The ones we'll be using tomorrow are likely to be better as well. However, "better" is best judged by those who employ these technologies to accomplish their goals. Left to politicians, "better" is judged from a very narrow and often times dangerous perspective.