Weather Channel Founder Wants to Sue Al Gore (citizensugar)

Post Reply New Topic

Weather Channel Founder Wants to Sue Al Gore

John Coleman wants to sue Al Gore for fraud. Coleman, who founded the Weather Channel in 1982, thinks taking legal action against Al Gore would be a great "vehicle to finally put some light on the fraud of global warming." Coleman rejects the notion that people must take drastic actions to reduce their energy use.

more...

That's a generalized statement ( humans are contributing to climate change) and a generalized sampling group (scientific community, including biologists, geologists, astronomers, chemists, etc.) A better survey would be of atmospheric scientists whether human activity is causing global warming.

It's just for fun.

Remember, it's just a web forum. These polls are not scientifically valid.

Your milage may vary.

There are a lot of reasons why we shouldn't be consuming the world's resources at the rate we do. If we use global warming as an excuse to stop so much pollution and wasteful consumption, how will that be harmful?

I think I'll get my weather from Intellicast now...

Whether or not global warming is true, this planet has a finite number of resources, so I don't think we should be in a rush to consume everything.

The only finite things I see are fossil fuels and things such as metals and precious minerals. Now, I am pretty sure that nobody really cares much about the latter here, especially given how many metallic things or mineral things can be recycled, and for the former, well, in all honesty, it is not likely that we could sustain the entirety of our species future on remaining fossil fuels anyway. So really, I don't see a major reason to push for conservation without other notions such as pollution and global warming.

Actually, things like fresh water, clean air, topsoil, and even helium are considered finite. The only thing really infinite to us is the light and warmth of the sun (well, at least for a few billion years) so in my opinion that should be our primary fuel source anyway.

Actually we could still recycle the fuel. This reaction,

(2)C8H10 + (21)O2 --> (16)CO2 + (10)H2O + energy

could still be reversed, but it would require energy input. Geothermal could could help do this faster than solar. Still, we'd be doing it only because we're addicted to octane. I think we should all use horses again and reserve the fossil fuel for military purposes and shipping purposes for while it lasts. Sure we could develop other methods of transportation to offset our addiction to cars, trucks, etc, but why? We could build cities closer together too and create jobs within walking distance. Our current way of living is not the only one possible and losing cars doesn't mean giving up all technology. It would mean no more car accidents and less roadkill.

This lawsuit has to be the most ignorant thing I've ever heard of. When I first read about it, I thought it might be some kind of ploy to get Global Warming and any proof thereof into the world stage by taking it to the Supreme Court of the U.S. Otherwise, the gentleman filing the lawsuit must be sticking his head in the sand. The climate IS changing ( there are examples of this everywhere - Antarctica melting at an astounding rate is the biggest clue) and it has changed a great deal in just the past 30 years. Global Warming isn't the only problem to be aware of, either. One of the theoretical signs of Polar Shift (north and south poles switching magnetic polarity) is the sighting of Aurora Borealis in places where it isn't normally seen. This pretty light show in the sky has recently been noted in the skies above the middle of the U.S. Eastern seaboard. It's pretty for ordinary people to look at, but if you're into meterology, it's a scary thing to contemplate. As to what a polar shift will do to the global climate is still being postulated and debated. I, for one, hope that when it comes, it happens long after I'm dead and gone. Unfortunately, the 'pretty rainbow clouds' seem to indicate differently.

In a way, I hope this goes to court. It will be one of the greatest trials in history, like Darwin arguing for evolution.

Another frivolous lawsuit. This one won't get far - regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees with global warming, there is no evidence that Gore defrauded anyone.

Pardon my ignorance, but why is a polar shift so terrible? I thought it took millions of years to complete, anyway.

The ironic thing about this global warming argument is that those who refute it actually give a more accurate label: climate change. The entire planet does not warm up at the same time. The increased heat in some areas disrupts weather patterns (creating the increased number and intensity of storms), makes some parts of the world colder (remember the snow in Jerusalem?), but the cumulative pattern over hundreds of years is a higher temperature.

The greenhouse effect: visible light passes into the atmosphere. Some visible light is reflected by clouds, haze, and the surface. The surface absorbs visible light and emits thermal radiation in infrared. Greenhouse gases (CH4, H2O, CO2) absorb and re-emit infrared radiation, thereby heating the lower atmosphere. I should think it obvious that we are drastically increasing the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

This seems easy enough for a patient and/or intelligent person to understand. However, graphs that span millions of years and encompass several fields of science are difficult to explain in a sound bite, so most people misunderstand the observation completely. But the owner of the Weather Channel? That's just absurd.

Former owner. A businessman (not a meteorologist or climatologist) who once had a good idea, started a company, then got fired when the company was struggling financially.

Ah. Thanks, monty.

From what I've read, Global Warming is almost all nature being itself. Would we have tryed to stop the Ice Age if it happened now? I don't care about the lawsuit, I just don't beleive everything I see or hear simply cause someone respectable is saying it.

To me, it doesn't matter whether or not we're causing it because:

1) The thing that can't be debated is that the climate is changing. Whether that's caused by man or not should be irrelevent, because

2) The planet still only has a finite number of resources, and we should be looking after it. The fact remains we cannot maintain our current level of consumption and consumerism - this planet just cannot sustain it or us. Something has to give. We need to conserve our energy, resources, limit pollution, look for clean energy, recycle, etc etc anyway and should have always been doing this.

Whether or not man has anything to do with it is irrelevent.