John Coleman To Sue Al Gore

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Weather Channel Founder: Sue Al Gore for Fraud

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.

"As you look at the atmosphere over the last 25 years, there's been perhaps a degree of warming, perhaps probably a whole lot less than that, and the last year has been so cold that that's been erased," he said.

"I think if we continue the cooling trend a couple of more years, the general public will at last begin to realize that they've been scammed on this global-warming thing."

Coleman spoke to FOXNews.com after his appearance last week at the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change in New York, where he called global warming a scam and lambasted the cable network he helped create.

"You want to tune to the Weather Channel and have them tell you how to live your life?" Coleman said. "Come on."

He laments the network's decision to focus on traffic and lifestyle reports over the weather.

"It's very clear that they don't realize that weather is the most significant impact in every human being's daily life, and good, solid, up-to-the-minute weather information and meaningful forecasts presented in such a way that people find them understandable and enjoyable can have a significant impact," he said.

"The more you cloud that up with other baloney, the weaker the product," he said.

Coleman has long been a skeptic of global warming, and carbon dioxide is the linchpin to his argument.

"Does carbon dioxide cause a warming of the atmosphere? The proponents of global warming pin their whole piece on that," he said.

The compound carbon dioxide makes up only 38 out of every 100,000 particles in the atmosphere, he said.

"That's about twice as what there were in the atmosphere in the time we started burning fossil fuels, so it's gone up, but it's still a tiny compound," Coleman said. "So how can that tiny trace compound have such a significant effect on temperature?

"My position is it can't," he continued. "It doesn't, and the whole case for global warming is based on a fallacy."

[phee]

Weather Channel Founder: Sue Al Gore for Fraud

LOL

[Msterbeau]

I'm willing to entertain the notion that the weather patterns we've been experiencing are to some degree, outside the realm of being caused entirely by humanity. What's not at issue is that pollution and smoke have caused a substantial decline in air quality, especially in large cities. I'd like to see the two issues separated. Pollution is an will be a huge problem for some time to come. Growing third-world countries in particular need to pay attention to this.

Going through the legal route I think is a big waste of money. A personal lawsuit will not in and of itself change government or corporate policies. And fraud? How was he personally defrauded?

[torn asunder]

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

I'm willing to entertain the notion that the weather patterns we've been experiencing are to some degree, outside the realm of being caused entirely by humanity. What's not at issue is that pollution and smoke have caused a substantial decline in air quality, especially in large cities. I'd like to see the two issues separated. Pollution is an will be a huge problem for some time to come. Growing third-world countries in particular need to pay attention to this.

Going through the legal route I think is a big waste of money. A personal lawsuit will not in and of itself change government or corporate policies. And fraud? How was he personally defrauded?

Al Gore refuses to debate his position on Global Warming. He is the leading "face" of the Man Made Global Warming side of the issue. A court battle would force him to answer the questions his opponents keep asking and he keeps ignoring.

As for the fraud... Laws and ordinaces are being passed based on the "science" of Man made global warming. A science that has never been subject to peer review.

OP-Ed from the Washington Times

Climate panel on the hot seat

More than 20 years ago, climate scientists began to raise alarms over the possibility global temperatures were rising due to human activities, such as deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels.

To better understand this potential threat, the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations created the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988 to provide a "comprehensive, objective, scientific, technical and socioeconomic assessment of human-caused climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation."

IPCC reports have predicted average world temperatures will increase dramatically, leading to the spread of tropical diseases, severe drought, the rapid melting of the world's glaciers and ice caps, and rising sea levels. However, several assessments of the IPCC's work have shown the techniques and methods used to derive its climate predictions are fundamentally flawed.

In a 2001 report, the IPCC published an image commonly referred to as the "hockey stick." This graph showed relatively stable temperatures from A.D. 1000 to 1900, with temperatures rising steeply from 1900 to 2000. The IPCC and public figures, such as former Vice President Al Gore, have used the hockey stick to support the conclusion that human energy use over the last 100 years has caused unprecedented rise global warming.

However, several studies cast doubt on the accuracy of the hockey stick, and in 2006 Congress requested an independent analysis of it. A panel of statisticians chaired by Edward J. Wegman, of George Mason University, found significant problems with the methods of statistical analysis used by the researchers and with the IPCC's peer review process. For example, the researchers who created the hockey stick used the wrong time scale to establish the mean temperature to compare with recorded temperatures of the last century. Because the mean temperature was low, the recent temperature rise seemed unusual and dramatic. This error was not discovered in part because statisticians were never consulted.

Furthermore, the community of specialists in ancient climates from which the peer reviewers were drawn was small and many of them had ties to the original authors — 43 paleoclimatologists had previously coauthored papers with the lead researcher who constructed the hockey stick.

These problems led Mr. Wegman's team to conclude that the idea that the planet is experiencing unprecedented global warming "cannot be supported."

The IPCC published its Fourth Assessment Report in 2007 predicting global warming will lead to widespread catastrophe if not mitigated, yet failed to provide the most basic requirement for effective climate policy: accurate temperature statistics. A number of weaknesses in the measurements include the fact temperatures aren't recorded from large areas of the Earth's surface and many weather stations once in undeveloped areas are now surrounded by buildings, parking lots and other heat-trapping structures resulting in an urban-heat-island effect.

Even using accurate temperature data, sound forecasting methods are required to predict climate change. Over time, forecasting researchers have compiled 140 principles that can be applied to a broad range of disciplines, including science, sociology, economics and politics.

In a recent NCPA study, Kesten Green and J. Scott Armstrong used these principles to audit the climate forecasts in the Fourth Assessment Report. Messrs. Green and Armstrong found the IPCC clearly violated 60 of the 127 principles relevant in assessing the IPCC predictions. Indeed, it could only be clearly established that the IPCC followed 17 of the more than 127 forecasting principles critical to making sound predictions.

A good example of a principle clearly violated is "Make sure forecasts are independent of politics." Politics shapes the IPCC from beginning to end. Legislators, policymakers and/or diplomatic appointees select (or approve) the scientists — at least the lead scientists — who make up the IPCC. In addition, the summary and the final draft of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report was written in collaboration with political appointees and subject to their approval.

Sadly, Mr. Green and Mr. Armstrong found no evidence the IPCC was even aware of the vast literature on scientific forecasting methods, much less applied the principles.

The IPCC and its defenders often argue that critics who are not climate scientists are unqualified to judge the validity of their work. However, climate predictions rely on methods, data and evidence from other fields of expertise, including statistical analysis and forecasting. Thus, the work of the IPCC is open to analysis and criticism from other disciplines.

The IPCC's policy recommendations are based on flawed statistical analyses and procedures that violate general forecasting principles. Policymakers should take this into account before enacting laws to counter global warming — which economists point out would have severe economic consequences

[torn asunder]

btw, my applause was for gaf original post, not Msterbeau's...

sorry for the confusion!

[ttogreh]

Yes, Al Gore is a zealot, and it is much more than likely that climate change is effected through several vectors, only a few of which humans can hope to control in any meaningful way. That being said... it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to remain locked in to the carbon economy. Simply put, the carbon economy pollutes, is finite, leaves the United States' economic destiny in the hands of petroleum and natural gas suppliers, and there is strong evidence that is contributes at least in some way to climate change.

The Al Gore / John Coleman battle is pointless, irrelevant, and simply distracts us from the real issue. The carbon economy is a national security threat that CAN and MUST be left in the dustbin of history.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Yes, the finite.... sixth most common element in the whole Universe...

there is strong evidence that is contributes at least in some way to climate change

No, there is not. There is not one study that says that, that is not being called into question due to faulty science.

The Al Gore / John Coleman battle is pointless, irrelevant, and simply distracts us from the real issue. The carbon economy is a national security threat that CAN and MUST be left in the dustbin of history.

Wrong. As long as Al Gore and his followers are clouding the minds of the populace with tainted studies and misinformation, no real progress on "solving" this problem will ever happen.

Simply put, the carbon economy pollutes, is finite, leaves the United States' economic destiny in the hands of petroleum and natural gas suppliers

And Al Gore wants to hand it to people like himself... that own controlling stock in Carbon Off-Set companys. Even if we get off carbon... the economy just gets handed to whom ever owns the replacement energy source.

[ttogreh]

Who the hell owns the sun, the wind, and every last hectare of land? Not TILLABLE land... land. The new energy economy is DISTRIBUTED.

Algae grown in sealed greenhouse in the desert, or in briny coastal waters. Wind turbines, solar arrays, hydroelectric rigs, and yes, nuclear plants.

It's probably a good fifty years away, but the alternate energy SOURCES... PLURAL... are likely to not be anywhere near the command and control model that petroleum and natural gas are.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Who owns the patent on the carbon based Algae farms? Who owns the patent on the efficient solar panels and wind turbines?

Until we as individuals, can create enough energy to supply our own individual needs... we will be enslaved to someone economically.

[phee]

So the earth heats up.... which causes more evaporation..... which causes more clouds.... which cools the earth... which causes rain.... which causes more plant growth.... which causes more oxygan.... Blah blah blah blah.... (the point being that AN ANSWER in a singular form is not really accessable at this point IMO)

[ttogreh]

That's what democracies and the commons are for. Assuming that a multinational wants to install a new energy rig of some sort (and by the way, there is carbon, and then there is sequestered carbon from the carboniferous... stop equivocating the two, Gaf), in a sovereign nation, it will have to play by that nation's rules.

All political power is derived from the barrel of a gun, and America has lots of guns.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

CO2 released from Coal is no different than CO2 released from burning a tree, petroleum or the decomp of organic matter.

Can we get back to the topic at hand?

phee - I'm sorry, though I agree with your end statement... I must disagree with how you got there. Clouds do not form because of evaporation. Humidity is the end result of evaperation... clouds form when cosmic rays enter the atmosphere and create charged particles that attract water vapor... which attract other charged particles covered with water. Cloud.

BTW - Water vapor is a bigger contributor to warming than CO2

[phee]

CO2 released from Coal is no different than CO2 released from burning a tree, petroleum or the decomp of organic matter.

Can we get back to the topic at hand?

phee - I'm sorry, though I agree with your end statement... I must disagree with how you got there. Clouds do not form because of evaporation. Humidity is the end result of evaperation... clouds form when cosmic rays enter the atmosphere and create charged particles that attract water vapor... which attract other charged particles covered with water. Cloud.

BTW - Water vapor is a bigger contributor to warming than CO2

Danke... it was off the cuff... making it up as I go... but you get the point

[ttogreh]

Ok. You want to equivocate? Fine. Equivocate. And don't go "back to the topic at hand" with me. The TOPIC is the debate over global climate change. You opened this door; I am just walking through it. I am doing my damndest to be as civil as I can be about it, too, thank you very much.

Chemically, CO2 is CO2. You've got me there. However, and this is where I clarify your equivocation, CO2 sequestered 300 million years ago in the form of coal has not affected the atmosphere... for... 300... thousand... thousand... years. The carbon from coal burnt today that is released into the atmosphere has not been an atmospheric factor in any way for 100 times longer than the story of human evolution.

The carbon dioxide I am exhaling right now... could have conceivably been part of the biosphere since the crust of the earth cooled four billion years ago.

Carbon from coal and the carbon in algae... are two different animals. And you know it.

[torn asunder]

Ok. You want to equivocate? Fine. Equivocate. And don't go "back to the topic at hand" with me. The TOPIC is the debate over global climate change. You opened this door; I am just walking through it. I am doing my damndest to be as civil as I can be about it, too, thank you very much.

Chemically, CO2 is CO2. You've got me there. However, and this is where I clarify your equivocation, CO2 sequestered 300 million years ago in the form of coal has not affected the atmosphere... for... 300... thousand... thousand... years. The carbon from coal burnt today that is released into the atmosphere has not been an atmospheric factor in any way for 100 times longer than the story of human evolution.

The carbon dioxide I am exhaling right now... could have conceivably been part of the biosphere since the crust of the earth cooled four billion years ago.

Carbon from coal and the carbon in algae... are two different animals. And you know it.

i'd just like to point out that carbon and CO2 are not the same thing...

[ttogreh]

Yes, I am interchanging the two. Perhaps I could be more precise, but I assure you, I am doing my best to NOT equivocate. Perhaps I am failing, but it is an honest mistake, not a willful act.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

*sigh*

The topic is actually Al Gore and the fact that he is being forced, via the courts, to debate Global Warming. Something he has refused to do.

but to address what you have said...

CO2 is being hailed as the major cause of Global Warming. Right now the "conversation" is focused on Fossil fuels such as oil and coal. We talk so much about those because they account for most of the worlds CO2 output. If we just change major sources of CO2 output, we are not doing anything to counter Global Warming. If it is infact CO2 that is the major factor... we have to find a way to keep ALL CO2 exhaust from making it to the atmosphere. The source of the CO2 does not really matter in the grand scheme of things.

There are things we could do to scrub the atmosphere... a good example is trees. This idea, BTW, was put forth by the founder of Green Peace, so please don't attack me for bringing it up... If we cut down a large portion of the old growth trees, and did not burn ANY of the trees.. use them for lumber and ground the rest into mulch... Then plant two fast growing species of tree for every tree we cut down.. we would scrub the atmosphere within 20 years.

We have the tech to capture every bit of CO2 out cars and trucks put out... The military has an exhaust system that turns the exhaust from a Humvee into drinking water and a lump of solids. Looks alot like coal... It's expensive.. and still in end stage testing.. but the tech is there.

Look, I would really like to have a real conversation about these issues. Without all the arguments you love so much to start. Please, get over your need to make me look bad and prove me wrong. All your doing is clouding the issue and keeping any real progress from happening.

[torn asunder]

There are things we could do to scrub the atmosphere... a good example is trees. This idea, BTW, was put forth by the founder of Green Peace, so please don't attack me for bringing it up... If we cut down a large portion of the old growth trees, and did not burn ANY of the trees.. use them for lumber and ground the rest into mulch... Then plant two fast growing species of tree for every tree we cut down.. we would scrub the atmosphere within 20 years.

this has always been my issue - we're clearfalling (is that the term?) all this equitorial land (rainforests) that, had we left it intact, would have been clearing all this CO2 we're putting out. getting away from fossil fuels is a great idea and needs to be pursued, but if you want to start making an immediate impact, (in my opinion) start planting trees!!

[ttogreh]

CO2 is being hailed as the major cause of Global Warming. Right now the "conversation" is focused on Fossil fuels such as oil and coal. We talk so much about those because they account for most of the worlds CO2 output. If we just change major sources of CO2 output, we are not doing anything to counter Global Warming. If it is infact CO2 that is the major factor... we have to find a way to keep ALL CO2 exhaust from making it to the atmosphere. The source of the CO2 does not really matter in the grand scheme of things.

There are things we could do to scrub the atmosphere... a good example is trees. This idea, BTW, was put forth by the founder of Green Peace, so please don't attack me for bringing it up... If we cut down a large portion of the old growth trees, and did not burn ANY of the trees.. use them for lumber and ground the rest into mulch... Then plant two fast growing species of tree for every tree we cut down.. we would scrub the atmosphere within 20 years.

We have the tech to capture every bit of CO2 out cars and trucks put out... The military has an exhaust system that turns the exhaust from a Humvee into drinking water and a lump of solids. Looks alot like coal... It's expensive.. and still in end stage testing.. but the tech is there.

Therein lies the rub. Let's say I grow some soybeans to make vegetable oil out of them. Currently, best practice involves the use of nitrogen fertilizer derived from petroleum or natural gas, the use of farm equipment that runs on fossil fuels, the extraction of the oil with devices that use electricity derived from coal or natural gas power plants (or maybe nuclear or hydroelectric or... but let's not get into that right now), the refinement of the oil into fuel with more electrically powered devices and methanol made from natural gas...

Currently, the amount of sequestered carbon released in the making of this so-called "carbon neutral" fuel could very well be twice what is actually deferred when you use the fuel instead of regular diesel. I haven't calculated it in any way, though. Actual diesel may in fact be slightly more polluting.

However, if someone uses old fryer oil that was grown using organic methods, electrical refinement equipment that is run off of solar or wind power, methanol that was cracked from gas pyrolysis of wood...

Not everything is equal. There are shades of grey between black and white.

Moreover, we simply can't replace all of the carboniferous carbon with the environmental carbon in equal amounts. Usage of environmental carbon-based biofuels will probably never get much higher than a quarter of what we use in the form of formerly sequestered carbon fuels right now.

The future is electrical storage, more mass transit, more efficient transportation of goods and services, more consumption of locally produced goods and services, and efficiency, efficiency, efficiency.

The fact is, the sequestered carbon economy is essentially a refinement of a 150 year old economic model over the last 150 years. We've pushed the envelope about as far as we can.

It's time for new ideas.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

this has always been my issue - we're clearfalling (is that the term?) all this equitorial land (rainforests) that, had we left it intact, would have been clearing all this CO2 we're putting out. getting away from fossil fuels is a great idea and needs to be pursued, but if you want to start making an immediate impact, (in my opinion) start planting trees!!

Wrong. Sorta. Old growth trees absorb almost no CO2. Young trees on the other hand.. ones still growing... absorb shit laods of it to create new cells. Trees are nothing more than CO2 Batteries.

To scrub the atmospere we need to cut down old growth. We cannot burn what we cut down.. thats defeats the purpose. Build with it. Grind leaves and branches up into mulch... composte it and make new top soil.

This was not my idea. Please... no body attack me over it. The founder of Greenpeace wants to do this. it's his idea and plan.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Therein lies the rub. Let's say I grow some soybeans to make vegetable oil out of them. Currently, best practice involves the use of nitrogen fertilizer derived from petroleum or natural gas, the use of farm equipment that runs on fossil fuels, the extraction of the oil with devices that use electricity derived from coal or natural gas power plants (or maybe nuclear or hydroelectric or... but let's not get into that right now), the refinement of the oil into fuel with more electrically powered devices and methanol made from natural gas...

Currently, the amount of sequestered carbon released in the making of this so-called "carbon neutral" fuel could very well be twice what is actually deferred when you use the fuel instead of regular diesel. I haven't calculated it in any way, though. Actual diesel may in fact be slightly more polluting.

However, if someone uses old fryer oil that was grown using organic methods, electrical refinement equipment that is run off of solar or wind power, methanol that was cracked from gas pyrolysis of wood...

Not everything is equal. There are shades of grey between black and white.

Moreover, we simply can't replace all of the carboniferous carbon with the environmental carbon in equal amounts. Usage of environmental carbon-based biofuels will probably never get much higher than a quarter of what we use in the form of formerly sequestered carbon fuels right now.

The future is electrical storage, more mass transit, more efficient transportation of goods and services, more consumption of locally produced goods and services, and efficiency, efficiency, efficiency.

The fact is, the sequestered carbon economy is essentially a refinement of a 150 year old economic model over the last 150 years. We've pushed the envelope about as far as we can.

It's time for new ideas.

You mixing terms again. The only carboniferous fuel is Coal. The other carboniferous formation are not fuel sources. petroluem in not carboniferous. Well, some maybe, but not a great portion of it.

The rest of what you said is why you and I dont get along. I agree we need alternative Fuel sources. For some reason you dont seem get that. No matter how many times I tell you. Where we disagree is that I don't want to give up research on things we can do now to improve on what we are currently doing to make it as good as we can. Until we get a good and viable alternative.. we are stuck on Petroluem. WE are never going to get away from CO2 and other green house gases. Ever. Long before man ever came close to evolving.. we had CO2 build ups in the atmosphere. We had warmings and coolings. I am un-willing to listen to fake science (man induced global warming) that happens to support my views. WE have to recognize the REAL science, the non-political science and do everything we can to make things better.

There is much we can do if we don;t write whole sciences off because they dont fit into what we invision as the fix. We need to change our vision to fit the science.

[torn asunder]

Wrong. Sorta. Old growth trees absorb almost no CO2. Young trees on the other hand.. ones still growing... absorb shit laods of it to create new cells. Trees are nothing more than CO2 Batteries.

To scrub the atmospere we need to cut down old growth. We cannot burn what we cut down.. thats defeats the purpose. Build with it. Grind leaves and branches up into mulch... composte it and make new top soil.

This was not my idea. Please... no body attack me over it. The founder of Greenpeace wants to do this. it's his idea and plan.

huh... cool, thanks for clearing that up for me! i didn't know that...

ouit of curiosity - if we were to burn it, is there anything on the market that would act like a catalytic converter on a car? for example, something one could put in a flue/chimney, that would somehow "clean" the smoke so that we didn't put more CO2 out? seems like we could use something like that in the northern climes, so we could use wood for heat, rather than natural gas / propane / etc...

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

yes, but the cost is prohibitive to most home owners. I know that the military has working tech to turn auto exhaust into bricks or carbon and water... but I dont know how well iot would adapt to a chimney... think it needs pressure from the engine to work.... but there are ways being developed.