Weather Channel Founder Wants To Sue Al Gore For Global Warming Fraud
100% chance of dumb.
Filed under: not green — Michael d'Estries @ 2:18 pm
March 4th 2008
The founder of the Weather Channel, John Coleman, is angry. Like Bruce Banner-turning-into-Hulk angry. Apparently, he’s in a huff over the network’s reports on climate change and and claims ‘they’re telling us what to think.” He does have a point. Just last week, I heard a report that it was going to rain here and I took an umbrella with me to work. A classic example of the Weather Channel coercive ways. But seriously, this guy’s got a beef and let it be known at a skeptics conference on Global Warming in New York City yesterday. Here’s a great quote:
“[I] have a feeling this is the opening,” Coleman said. “If the lawyers will take the case – sue the people who sell carbon credits. That includes Al Gore. That lawsuit would get so much publicity, so much media attention. And as the experts went to the media stand to testify, I feel like that could become the vehicle to finally put some light on the fraud of global warming.”
Yawn. What a beautiful waste of time. Just like this conference, skeptics continue to throw everything in the book at denying climate change. The Heartland Institute — which organized this gathering — invited a circle-jerk of “conspiracy theorists, industry parrots, puzzle-makers, scientists for hire and those who just can’t let go of their flat-earth ways.” Coleman’s idea what we should sue the carbon credit industry — and those associated with it — is just another example of how far this crowd is willing to go to draw attention to their lunacy. Skepticism is a true force in keeping science on its toes, but these groups aren’t brining much to the table to make the world think otherwise. Oh well, they’re always good for a laugh — or better yet, as DeSmogBlog pointed out, a yawn.
“Seems like the Flat Earth Society is still alive and well and taking drugs supplied in the Koolaid doled out by Glen Beck & RU$H Limbaugh…what is it Oxycontin or Fentanyl?”
Well, ooks like the lefties are out of ideas and proof, so let the name calling begin!
Isn’t it more of a “flat earth” idea to deny that the world was once under ice and, without global warming, still would be? Accept the truth that the earth has always warmed and cooled and let’s fix the problems we have control over; like clean coal technology and wind and solar technologies. This would fix so many problems, but unfortunately, Al can’t find a way to cash in on this without creating hysteria!
the tide is turning on the global warming fraud…i used to believe the hype until I started thinking for myself and researched it. There is practically no media coverage of how many scientists and meteorologists have come out against the numerous lies(including the UN’s faulty computer models)…you people are being conned by faux-environmentalists.
The point of the suite is fraud with a secondary benefit of disproving the global warming scare. The world goes through cycles of global warming and cooling, it has been happening for centuries.
The real issue is the whole “carbon credit” idea. To make me pay you extra money for nothing? What it says is, I really don’t care if you pollute, just give me your money if you do. I’m the bully in the schoolyard, give me your lunch money now.
Come on, if “global warming” advocates really cared, they would not just be taxing people, they would be implementing programs to get rid of the items that create the problems and replacing them with safer alternatives.
Waiting for Al Gore to invent solar powered cars, or at least start funding the research for such things… he’s got money for that kind of stuff.
Can I get an Amen!
The good Dr. is correct that there are commonalities between the extremes of Nazism, Communism and extreme environmentalism. If you read about Charlie Manson, you find that he combined all three in a single person. They are all extreme philosopies that have roots in the gnostic occult and more extreme ideas of the enlightenment. Given enough leeway, the extreme enviromentalist would dictate to us the same as Hitler and Stalin did (for our own good of course). Tristan
Wow….i think its so funny how the left liberals are so rappidly taking over this country. they truly stand for everything that is the opposite of this country. they only want us all to live in fear with their ploys like this. i really hope that this lawsuit takes off and people begin to see all the lies told by the liberal media
Tristan,
Really? Is that what you really believe? Because seriously, you sound like a moron comparing environmentalism to Nazi Germany.
Liberal this, liberal that…seriously, cry me a river. All that I hear in these comments is whining, coupled with crazy conspiracy theories, suggestions that somehow “clean coal” is good for America, and other lame ideas.
No wonder the rest of the world laughs at us.
There are always going to be people who are keen to exploit others ignorance/ guilt/ laziness. The carbon offset schemes may sometimes be implemented by genuine people, but on the whole it is a cynical move made by those who see a way to make money out of what should be a movement towards less consumption, not more.
I am not holier than thou – I flew 20,000 miles last year, but I am aware that whether our actions are causing global warming or not we ARE using up all the resources at break neck speed, and we really need to change our habits for that reason, rather than the global warming reason, which is why I do what I think is right – not pressured by media or anyone else.
All this political screaming about liberals being the new commies or whatever some of these posts are ranting about is highly irrelevant.
I am from the UK, and we certainly DO NOT have the impression that the US is being ‘taken over’ by liberal lefties – generally speaking we see the US as pretty right wing and conservative, and of course extremely paranoid!
Mr Coleman, Go for it! I cannot stand the story telling of Al Gore & alike. I believe that scientists are the people we should listen too. After all, their bank accounts have not tripled reporting FACTS.
Ooooh! And it looks like Libertarians are ready for a ‘blood-letting’. Seems like you can’t get enough Type Oil Positive so you need to vent it on some poor Liberal pipedreamer! As long as Neil Boortz listening boobs like you still exist on the planet there doesn’t have to be a need for innovation. We would have innovated to new fuels anyway. So go catch a bus Grampa! But watch out! Breathing those diesel fumes will kill that last brain cell you had hanging on for dear life! I am a Realist and a Populist myself. I believe in cause and effects. The effects are high gas prices due to waging war in Iraq. The cause was flag waving dilettantes like yourself that like playing arm chair generals while the rest of us pay out the nose for fuel! You HAD your time to manage, 8 years, and you screwed up every second of it! It’s our turn now!
Obvious is right, Libertarian. Stop living in a plastic fantastic world! Our markets are failing, our deficits rising while the dollar drops like a stone! Meanwhile they plan more police actions in Iran while the price of gasoline may top $4 a gallon by the end of the year! GIVE UP! The more you open your mouth the more you show your ignorance! The people are sick & tired of the way things are! Face facts!
By the way, why is this Libertarian able to come here and make snide comments?
“denying climate change” ?!? – you are blatantly misrepresenting/spinning the true nature of the story. Coleman is NOT “denying climate change,” rather, he is challenging Gore’s hardline assertions that “Man-Made CO2″ emitions are the cause of global warming/climate change – a notion which, when you actually attempt to educate yourself, seems to hold some legitimacy and real interesting implications.
Here is a very good film explaining the science behind the opposing views on global warming I think that if you have any interest you should check this out so you have the whole story.
Sorry I wasn’t able to embed the video but these are the URLs for each part of the video.
Part 1
http://youtube.com/watch?v=fo4R7yXz-90
Part 2
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Vf-Tg-s5m8w&feature=related
Part 3
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Wy0hGxq5g0U&feature=related
Part 4
http://youtube.com/watch?v=hfsX_nHn_hM&feature=related
Part 5
http://youtube.com/watch?v=kUwXt2iNiKg&feature=related
Part 6
http://youtube.com/watch?v=OYD7evTpAFI&feature=related
Part 7
http://youtube.com/watch?v=m6CG7ermeHQ
Part 8
http://youtube.com/watch?v=M8ZC4hD9MRc&feature=related
Mr. Obvious and Conservathink,
Please remove your heads from your rectal cavities and read what I posted. You obviously have pre-conceived notions of what a libertarian thinks and are spewing feces accordingly. I am glad to hear that you are a populist; please stick your finger in the air and decide your opinion.
“You HAD your time to manage, 8 years, and you screwed up every second of it! It’s our turn now!”
You have got to be kidding me!!! You are going to try to lay Bush at my feet?!?!!?
We have not had a voice since Jefferson.
“By the way, why is this Libertarian able to come here and make snide comments?”
Is it Conservathink or Nazithink? No open exchange of ideas?
Shame on both of you for offering nothing positive to the conversation.
The problem with the global warming alarmist movement is that it is perpetuated predominantly by non-scientists (like Al Gore) who rely mainly on name-calling to dispute anyone who disagrees with them instead of using actual science. Science like the fact that 97% of the atmosphere’s CO2 is naturally occurring. Or that CO2 comprises only 2 to 3% of all greenhouse gases; water vapor accounts for 95% of greenhouse gases and is almost entirely naturally occurring (so hydrogen cars are definitely not the answer since they will spew even more water vapor into the atmosphere). The science just doesn’t support the theory that CO2 has any effect on global temperatures.
So go ahead – call me names. It will do nothing to dispute the science.
I will be paying more for gasoline, because the politicians were misled.
Both Al Gore and the head of the IPCC are responsible for the Carbon Tax.
Perhaps not criminally, but financially.
The evidence is mounting that the warming stopped in 1998.
Argos indicates ocean temperatures are not increasing.
Grace indicates ocean levels are not rising.
Predictions from Solar Cycle indicate cooling trend.
this jerk off says that….
” The Heartland Institute — which organized this gathering — invited a circle-jerk of “conspiracy theorists, industry parrots, puzzle-makers, scientists for hire and those who just can’t let go of their flat-earth ways. ”
well i’m not sure if he realized that Al Gore was offered $200,000 to attend this gathering and turned it down…i guess he is right when he says a bunch of jerk off’s….
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/03/04/weather-channel-founder-sue-al-gore-expose-global-warming-fraud
Here is a very good film explaining the science behind the opposing views on global warming I think that if you have any interest you should check this out so you have the whole story.
Sorry I wasn’t able to embed the video but these are the URLs for each part of the video.
—–
You can watch the whole video here:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3928695593212006635&q=global+warming+swindle+site%3Avideo.google.com&total=29&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1
I suggest you watch it, especially if you believe everything Al Gore says.
To the writer of this column; how about instead of making a mockery of this guy, you present some facts to back up your own argument. This entire article just rips this guy and presents absolutely argument as to why he is a lunatic. Why can’t all the facts be assemble and then we make a decision? I would rather do that than take YOUR word for it. You are no better than he! He at least is attempting to quantify the issue scientifically, i.e. measuring the amount of additional carbon in the atmosphere due to fossil fuels. I have seen no rebuttal from you, instead your column just makes a joke out of this guy and contributes nothing to the issue. Please present some facts to the contrary!
A few more questions; if temperatures trend below average for the next few years, and the global rise in temperature reverts back down toward average, will you apologize?
If in ten or twenty years, the polar ice caps re-freeze to were they were a hundred years ago, will you apologize?
There’s nothing wrong with analyzing the facts, but the facts first need be presented!
I agree with all the other intelligent people above me. I’ll start by saying I’m a GW skeptic, but not on basis of belief.
I do not believe that man pollutes the earth: I know it. My belief is that we aren’t polluting as much as Al Gore’d-in-the-head-at-birth says we are. Last October, a British court found 11 specific scientific falsehoods in “An Inconvenient Truth”, and thus labeled it a propaganda film.
AND THE MAN WON A NOBEL PRIZE?!?!?!?!? – I almost killed myself that day.
I don’t believe Climate Change is not anthropogenic. I know it is not – mostly. I’m not saying we have zero impact, just very little. Moreover, we can’t (and thus shouldn’t) do anything to “fix” Climate Change. Carbon laws, and more than half the Kyoto Agreement, are the biggest ineffectual wastes of money EVER in the history of mankind. There really isn’t room for rational opinion on this matter – Kyoto and carbon laws are purely political, based only loosely on scientific fact.
I do not believe that we should make strides to ‘clean’ our industrial tech and reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. I know that we should (’we’ being all humans, not just the western world). The extent at which we should is where belief comes into play, since there’s very little we can do to predict what the best course of action is.
I do not believe that John Coleman has a sound basis for a lawsuit against Al Gore and his cohorts. I know it. Regardless of the science behind GW, Gore is responsible (proudly) for influencing the passage of carbon laws and such. After these laws were passed, he proceeded to set up the carbon credits market and profit hugely from it. He indoctrinated a belief and profited from exploiting the actions of others based on that belief – this is one of the definitions of fraud. My belief, however, is that he should be shot and killed immediately after he confesses his sins of irrationality. On public television. (OK maybe that’s a bit much, but you get the idea)
This should be apparent: Al Gore (who is simply a real-world figurehead for environmentalism) is a man who deals with feelings, not logic. People who aren’t good at getting people to agree with them with charisma alone aren’t in political office.
Some matters should be political (hot topics in the US like abortion, gay rights, economics) because the way people FEEL determines what happens – there is no concrete right or wrong answer for everyone.
Climate Change, however (I’m capitalizing so not to offend anyone), poses questions that have concrete answers (some of them, others not) – one of them is that Climate Change is not anthropogenic, but instead very largely the product of natural cycles.
Also, CO2 is the 3rd or 4th most important “greenhouse gas” in our atmosphere, after WATER (compare a desert to a rain forest – this is easy) and METHANE, and perhaps another but it escapes me for now. Just an FYI for you “leftards” (no offense to rational people who vote liberal).
The above comment is one of the most hilarious and sad examples of skeptic stupidity I’ve ever read. Congrats.
There’s nothing new in the knowledge that human society has the attention span of a flea. The cliche “15 minutes of fame” comes to mind. Sci-Fi authors aplenty have criticized that attention span by claiming that we will never be able to leave our solar system – it takes too long. Somebody made the point about Y2K (intelligent people were refuting that stuff from day 0). Heck, most of us have forgotten already that a young celebrity died not to long ago – even me.
As such there are three kinds of people: people who are oblivious to this fact (most people), people that exploit this fact (business owners/leaders, politicians, news network programmers), and people who are aware of it and despise it, but realize there’s nothing that can be done to change it (philosophers, scientists, people whose thinking is dominated by rationality rather than passion).
Somebody pointed out the “Global Cooling Scare” of the mid 70s. Margaret Thatcher turned that one around with some legislation intended to boost nuclear plant construction in the UK. These legal actions were underlaid with conjectures that carbon dioxide – a chief product of coal combustion – is damaging to our environment.
Personally, I think she’d have changed her exact arguments if she knew what the outcome would be – she “got the ball rolling” unknowingly on GW, just like Charlie Thompson unwittingly contributed to the current disarrayed state of the Middle East – most specifically the number guns and RPG launchers that angry Arabs have to shoot at invaders.
I don’t look down on either of these people – their intentions were good. In fact, Al Gore may have one day been the same. He just got greedy for attention, and then money. (Don’t blame the man – he’s smarter than lots of people, but he counts on the folly of human nature to make money, and that pisses me off)
Fern’s comment is one of the most unoriginal and trivial examples of the thoughtless thinking (a.k.a. thinking with your heart, genital organs for some, etc.) that I’ve ever read. Congrats.
Provide me with some facts, leftard, then I’ll consider you part of the humble, intelligent, rational, caring sector of humanity.
Thinking with our hearts has done things like the Holocaust, the Crusades, and I can continue. Thinking with our heads has done things like putting men on the moon, making standardized electricity an easy convenience, and REALIZING THAT HUMANS AREN’T THE CENTER OF THE FLIPPING UNIVERSE, LITERALLY (then) OR METAPHORICALLY (now)
So much for that famed “list”. Hilarious.
http://www.desmogblog.com/500-scientists-with-documented-doubts-about-the-heartland-institute
The fact is, the equations used for the models to prove man has caused a change in global climate contain numerous variables with no values.
You can’t use guesses for equations and claim to be “scientific.”
Likewise, science isn’t based on a “consensus by the majority.” In science things are true and can be proven with repeatable results.
Man-made global climate change is OBSERVATION and hypothesis only. It isn’t fact and should not be treated as such.
Even if all the politicians want pi = 22/7 it isn’t going to happen.
I thought wow what a horrible article, then I saw what the website was, ha.
The humans are the parasites of our poor planet. I wish the Nile Virus spread and killed 99% of the human race so our animals and plants can live in peace.
The first to go into extinction should be the Americans and the Europeans.
Actually the Prius battery does not contain mercury. The Ni-Mh battery used in Prius is much more environmental friendly. Nickel and Metal Hydride are not heavy metals or toxic.
“The first to go into extinction should be the Americans and the Europeans.”
Absolutely!!! Because the Chinese are awesome environmentalists. They are only building a few hundred new coal fired power plants this year; and I love that they breed Saint Bernards for food since they are so large. And the middle east setting fire to oil fields? Oh man I love that. How about the Japanese cutting the fins off sharks then dumping the still living bodies back in the ocean to drown? Love those guys! And don’t even get me started on the Russians – wow talk about tree huggers. Chernobyl cocktails anyone?
Animal Lover – please stop exhaling carbon! I just felt the earth’s temperature rise 1/100000000 of a degree and my cat dropped over.
Wow i didn’t actually believe that a lot of americans think global warming doesn’t exist until i saw all these comments.
americans must be really smart to know better than the rest of the world who accept it as fact and are wasting their time trying to save the planet.
i’ve been brainwashed into recycling and everything. now we need to figure what the fraudsters do with all that seperated glass. oh i’ve figured it out! it’s a big terrorist plot they’re turning it in to WMDs. quick get a move on and bomb them…
“americans must be really smart to know better than the rest of the world who accept it as fact and are wasting their time trying to save the planet.”
Fact – the world always has and always will warm and cool
Fact – All of Europe once accepted that the earth was flat; that didn’t make it so.
Fact – I love recycling. I was just finishing separating my junk mail, newspapers, glass and plastic not ten minutes ago.
Some really smart people don’t believe in global warming. Other really smart people do. Mr. Coleman isn’t in either camp.
Mr. Coleman equates global warming with climate change (see page 2 “Global Warming i.e. Climate Change”) and attempts to debunk both with his position paper. They aren’t the same. Global warming is one theory (yes, I believe the verdict is still out, but that drastic change is a real possibility) of the outcome of Climate Change. Mr. Coleman ignorantly states that they are the same.
Even his source for primary authority, which he points to ad naseum in his “briefs”, completely disagrees with him on this point. In fact, http://www.icecap.us expressly states: “We worry the sole focus on greenhouse gases and the unwise reliance on imperfect climate models while ignoring real data may leave civilization unprepared for a sudden climate shift that history tells us will occur again, very possibly soon. ”
I love how Mr. Coleman state’s that he has “studied” the issue. He’s a weatherman, not a climatologist. Even if he does have advanced training in meteorology (I can’t find any info about his educational background, but I’m sure he’d tout it, if it helped him), to suggest, as he does expressly, that meteorology is the study of climate change (on page 2 of his position paper) demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding (or blatant misrepresentation) of the disciplines.
By definition, Meteorology is the study of weather process and forecasting over the short term. Climatology is the study of climate over the long-term. His piece is intellectually dishonest and it discredits his whole position.
Sure, meteorologist have something to say about the issues. They can be smart people who can contribute to the process. Yet, Mr. Coleman denigrates Meteorologists with PhDs (page 2) as likely single-minded. Apparently, only meteorologists who are weather forecasters and agree with Mr. Coleman’s views are truly capable of telling us what’s what regarding long-term climate change.
Another glaring example of his intellectual dishonesty is the statement “CO2 is not a pollutant” on page 7 and 9. Mr. Coleman intimates that it is not a pollutant simply because CO2 occurs naturally in the environment. Mr. Coleman argues that CO2 is also not a pollutant b/c plants need it to grow, and plants do better when they have more. He undermines his credibility by making such simplistic and ridiculous statements such as this.
The American Heritage Science Dictionary defines “pollutant” as “A substance or condition that contaminates air, water, or soil. Pollutants can be artificial substances, such as pesticides and PCBs, or naturally occurring substances, such as oil or carbon dioxide, that occur in harmful concentrations in a given environment…”. In my environmental studies education, I learned the definition a little more bluntly: shit can be good and it can be bad. It just depends on what you do with it, how you do what you do with it, and when you do it.
Understanding these issues is not the sole domain of scientists. Yet, to be arrogant, if not dishonest, about your authority and understanding of the issues is to undermine the credibility of your position. And you open yourself up to being ignored and discredited as Mr. Coleman surely should be.
I’ll listen to opposing views, but don’t insult my intelligence by parading out a T.V. Weatherman who has the chutzpah to suggest he is among the intellectual elite, by simply equating a career in meteorology with the discipline of climatology; who thinks that nothing that occurs naturally can be a pollutant; and who believes that climate change and global warming are equivalent and neither are real (despite his own primary source authority expressely disagreeing with him).
Moreover, most everybody excepts the “precautionary principle” as applied in the medical profession. Would’t it be wise to adopt the same principle when environmental health is at stake? I truly hope Mr. Coleman can flash those pearly whites and say “I told you so.” The stakes are too high for him to be wrong on the ultimate issue and for us to not have acted to address the threat.
The tragic truth about all of this, is we won’t know who was “right” and who was “wrong” until it is likely to late to avoid much of the impacts. I suggest we proceed to understand as much as we can and act in accordance with the precautionary principle. We can start by first making sure we put Mr. Coleman’s 40 pages of “briefs” in the proper place, the recycling bin.
“Moreover, most everybody excepts the “precautionary principle” as applied in the medical profession. Would’t it be wise to adopt the same principle when environmental health is at stake?”
Very true. Every American could benefit from setting aside a bit of arrogance and conserving a bit. I just ditched my sedan for a compact with a 5 speed and almost doubled my highway miles/gallon. I stopped buying bottled water and all the other simple crap that anyone can do to help with cleaner air and oceans without decimating their way of life.
The problem I have with the elitists is that they are getting rich by pushing lies, inaccuracies and fear. They promised us that Florida would be under water after the worst hurricane seasons ever in 2006 and 2007! Well???? As far as I know, they were some of the mildest. The truth is they just don’t know and they are not just saying “live a little more sustainably”, they are talking about destroying our economy while doing nothing about China, India and the middle east. What good is that going to do? Tank the dollar and throw us into a worldwide recession where large areas of the world starve?
You only hear about the Arctic ice receding and not about the ice in the Antarctic increasing. Could it be that like Mars, our northern hemisphere is tipping closer to the sun? Admittedly, I am not a Climatologist, Astronomer or even a Meteorologist but I can see that when my doctor is telling me that cutting whiskey out of my life will help me live longer and healthier; then he drains a full glass of Jack Daniels and pours himself another, maybe this guy has another agenda.
well, what about this? the semi goes by, the smoke gets too close to you and you cough. you stand on the cliffs near lake erie and you see the beautiful GREEN water down below. two of the countless examples of the destruction of the environment. and you people say that there is no such thing as global warming. who cares if its real or fake. look at what is being done on its behalf. both sides. i will allow you all to argue the negative of this, but are you really implying that its all bad? what, we dont need a more efficient fuel source? wait, we dont need to clean our water supply?
i say let the politicians argue about the reality of the issue, and let us continue to move foreward our efforts to cut out the oil companies by reducing the demand by creating our cheaper, eco friendly vehicles. watch government spending and prevent the best way we can their spending more money on themselves than the country they are supposed to represent. quit getting caught in the back and forth, its just a distraction. to keep you talking while they manipulate things behind the curtain, and im sorry friends, but is our curtain big enough to do the same in return?
gore leaves a lot to be desired and this site is a joke. here’s something you’ll hate. i just bought a new suburban and love it. do i need it? no, but it does come in handy sometimes. how’s my gas mileage? terrible. why would i buy such a big suv? ’cause I wanted it and i can afford it after years of struggling to get where i’m at. i have a tv in every bedroom too and sometimes they’re all on at the same time. i like to leave the lights on and never use flourescent bulbs. i keep the house at 68 in the summer and 74 in the winter. i’ll continue living like this regardless. green technology is great and i’d love to see it, but don’t ask me to change my habits because i never will