Weather Channel Founder: Sue Al Gore for Fraud

baraka · March 2008

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?

binger · March 2008

Why not? Lay it all out on the table.

baraka · March 2008

binger wrote:

Why not? Lay it all out on the table.

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.

El_Kabong · March 2008

baraka wrote:

So what do you guys think about this debate being forced into a court of law?

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?

baraka · March 2008

El_Kabong wrote:

can't they just have a conference or something?

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.

angelica · March 2008

I like the idea.

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.

El_Kabong · March 2008

baraka wrote:

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.

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

El_Kabong · March 2008

angelica wrote:

I like the idea.

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.

that last paragraph is what i'm worried about

angelica · March 2008

El_Kabong wrote:

that last paragraph is what i'm worried about

I'm at a point in my life where it seems that no matter what the subject, what is held as generally true by the majority is somehow watered down and distorted.

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.

baraka · March 2008

It appears that Gore's documentary has already been the subject of a court case in the UK with the result the judge found 9 serious errors of fact and so ruled that if shown to children in schools it must be accompanied by a warning and the counter arguments also must be presented.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/7037671.stm

Commy · March 2008

interesting idea, bringing it to court. But I think the scientific community can(and should) come up with some kind of forum annd debate this issue without political interference.

WMA · March 2008

Any debate would be completely political though.

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.

chopitdown · March 2008

Commy wrote:

interesting idea, bringing it to court. But I think the scientific community can(and should) come up with some kind of forum annd debate this issue without political interference.

that is impossible; most scientists rely on some sort of politics to support their work. Scientists have agendas and interests too.

farfromglorified · March 2008

There is absolutely no case here. Al Gore may be an idiot, but he's not committing "financial fraud". Furthermore, I find it pretty ridiculous that the head of a television station available to hundreds of millions of people is accusing the media of a "coverup". Perhaps he should use his own media channel to take his case to the public, rather than waste the time of the court with his 21st Century Scopes Trial.

I'm ready to declare Global Warming the most stupid issue in political history.

Commy · March 2008

farfromglorified wrote:

There is absolutely no case here. Al Gore may be an idiot, but he's not committing "financial fraud". Furthermore, I find it pretty ridiculous that the head of a television station available to hundreds of millions of people is accusing the media of a "coverup". Perhaps he should use his own media channel to take his case to the public, rather than waste the time of the court with his 21st Century Scopes Trial.

I'm ready to declare Global Warming the most stupid issue in political history.

dude...I kind of agree, with the last part, first part too but...there is a catch. Its not an issue you want to be wrong about, you kind of have to support the idea that we can reduce our affect on the environment. If we're wrong we destroy an entire planet, you know, end of the world..

farfromglorified · March 2008

Commy wrote:

Its not an issue you want to be wrong about, you kind of have to support the idea that we can reduce our affect on the environment.

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.

If we're wrong we destroy an entire planet, you know, end of the world..

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.

Commy · March 2008

farfromglorified wrote:

Why in the world would I want to "reduce my affect on the environment"?

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.

You know what I meant I think. The environment, as it stands, is fit for human survival, but that could change due to our actions. Even the possibility of that being true should motivate us into action, into preventing what could be the end of our species.

farfromglorified · March 2008

Commy wrote:

You know what I meant I think. The environment, as it stands, is fit for human survival, but that could change due to our actions. Even the possibility of that being true should motivate us into action, into preventing what could be the end of our species.

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?

Commy · March 2008

farfromglorified wrote:

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.

sweet adeline · March 2008

i don't see why people even argue about trying to lessen their impact on earth. what is wrong with cleaner air and water? what is wrong with cheaper fuel? alternative energy sources help to solve both of these problems.

instead i get these stupid fucking forward emails about not buying gas for one day or boycotting exon and mobil.

farfromglorified · March 2008

Commy wrote:

I'm saying #2 could be true, and that its something we can't afford to be wrong about.

#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".

Weather Channel Founder: Sue Al Gore for Fraud

Comments

Categories