• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Weather Channel founder John Coleman suggests legal action against Al Gore

hellokeith

Golden Member
Nov 12, 2004
1,670
0
0
Link to article about John Coleman

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.

Speaking at the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change on Monday, Coleman sharply chastised those who further global warming alarmism. Coleman believes that the station he founded has been captured by alarmists, such as the Weather Channel?s Heidi Cullen, who has advocated revoking the license of meteorologists that believe global warming can be explained by cyclical weather patterns and not human activity.

The majority of the scientific community seems to agree that humans are contributing to climate change.
Contributing? No doubt. But an insignificant contribution..

27% does not make a concensus

A 2003 survey of 530 climate scientists in 27 countries, conducted by Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch at the GKSS Institute of Coastal Research in Germany, found


82 percent said global warming is happening, but only


56 percent said it?s mostly the result of human causes, and only


35 percent said models can accurately predict future climate conditions.


Only 27 percent believed ?the current state of scientific knowledge is able to provide reasonable predictions of climate variability on time scales of 100 years.?
And lastly, regarding this fringe group of denier scientists..

Former Vice President Al Gore has said repeatedly that there is a ?consensus? in favor of his alarmist views on global warming. And of course, he?s not alone.

Two weeks ago, Jim Martin, executive director of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, when told of our conference, said, ?You could have a convention of all the scientists who dispute climate change in a relatively small phone booth.? (Denver Post, February 12, 2008).

RealClimate.org predicted that no real scientists would show up at this conference.

Well ...

We have with us, tonight and tomorrow, more than 200 scientists and other experts on climate change, from Australia, Canada, England, France, Hungary, New Zealand, Poland, Russia, Sweden, and of course the United States.

They come from the University of Alabama, Arizona State, Carleton, Central Queensland, Delaware, Durham, and Florida State University.

From George Mason, Harvard, The Institute Pasteur in Paris, James Cook, John Moores, Johns Hopkins, and the London School of Economics.

From The University of Mississippi, Monash, Nottingham, Ohio State, Oregon State, Oslo, Ottawa, Rochester, Rockefeller, and the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm.

And from the Russian Academy of Sciences, Suffolk University, the University of Virginia, Westminster School of Business (in London), and the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania.
:thumbsup: to this fringe group of climate scientists who stand up against political correctness, ask the hard questions the IPCC won't ask, and deliver unbiased scientific data.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,926
18
81
Originally posted by: hellokeith
Link to article about John Coleman

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.

Speaking at the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change on Monday, Coleman sharply chastised those who further global warming alarmism. Coleman believes that the station he founded has been captured by alarmists, such as the Weather Channel?s Heidi Cullen, who has advocated revoking the license of meteorologists that believe global warming can be explained by cyclical weather patterns and not human activity.

The majority of the scientific community seems to agree that humans are contributing to climate change.
Contributing? No doubt. But an insignificant contribution..
See that smog above the city? Totally natural. Hole in the ozone layer you say? Must've been cosmic radiation. We all know human activity can't effect the environment in any significant way.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
20,491
722
126
Al Gore and Michael Moore and co-producing a movie I hear. Theyre in about the same league.
 

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,565
1,048
126
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Al Gore and Michael Moore and co-producing a movie I hear. Theyre in about the same league.
Throw Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coultergeist in there too. Bunch of effen tools, the lot of em.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
71,158
20,847
136
Shocking, another hellokeith global warming thread.

Amazingly enough he tries to dishonestly frame the issue by saying it's a 27% consensus, when what he means is that only 27% exactly agree with Al Gore, while 35% almost completely agree with Al Gore, 56% largely agree with Al Gore, and 82% generally agree with Al Gore.

Then of course his article says that just because scientists are attending a conference that they must be explicitly against the consensus opinion. That's also obviously false.

Ugh, another stupid anti-GW thread made by the same person who has made the last half dozen stupid anti-GW threads. Enough already, we get that you don't believe in it. Stop attempting to cloud the issue with vague innuendo and dishonest reporting of selective information.
 

bbdub333

Senior member
Aug 21, 2007
686
0
0
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Shocking, another hellokeith global warming thread.

Amazingly enough he tries to dishonestly frame the issue by saying it's a 27% consensus, when what he means is that only 27% exactly agree with Al Gore, while 35% almost completely agree with Al Gore, 56% largely agree with Al Gore, and 82% generally agree with Al Gore.

...

Stop attempting to cloud the issue with vague innuendo and dishonest reporting of selective information.
Ironic, considering you're trying to do the exact same with your percentages. Relabeling and trying to compound those statistics for your own cause is dishonest and ignorant at best.

I like how all this is written off, mostly without addressing anything that is said in the article.

Most of you refuse to see that you are as bad as you claim others are. Pathetic.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
71,158
20,847
136
Originally posted by: bbdub333
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Shocking, another hellokeith global warming thread.

Amazingly enough he tries to dishonestly frame the issue by saying it's a 27% consensus, when what he means is that only 27% exactly agree with Al Gore, while 35% almost completely agree with Al Gore, 56% largely agree with Al Gore, and 82% generally agree with Al Gore.

...

Stop attempting to cloud the issue with vague innuendo and dishonest reporting of selective information.
Ironic, considering you're trying to do the exact same with your percentages. Relabeling and trying to compound those statistics for your own cause is dishonest and ignorant at best.

I like how all this is written off, mostly without addressing anything that is said in the article.

Most of you refuse to see that you are as bad as you claim others are. Pathetic.
Uhmm, it's a press release by an anti-gw group.

Please explain to me how I am misrepresenting those statistics. Al Gore's basic stance is (and has been since the 70's) that global warming is happening and that mankind is helping to cause it. If you are trying to argue that the scientists polled here do not believe those two statements, please make that argument. I'd love to hear it.

 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,926
18
81
Originally posted by: bbdub333


I like how all this is written off, mostly without addressing anything that is said in the article.
It's not an article, it's a hack's opening statement at his conference. Do we have to take the time to refute the same crap every time someone says it or do we eventually get to the point where we are allowed to make fun of people when they are funded by oil and tobacco and somehow find that tobacco smoke and pollution don't hurt anyone?

 

bbdub333

Senior member
Aug 21, 2007
686
0
0
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: bbdub333
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Shocking, another hellokeith global warming thread.

Amazingly enough he tries to dishonestly frame the issue by saying it's a 27% consensus, when what he means is that only 27% exactly agree with Al Gore, while 35% almost completely agree with Al Gore, 56% largely agree with Al Gore, and 82% generally agree with Al Gore.

...

Stop attempting to cloud the issue with vague innuendo and dishonest reporting of selective information.
Ironic, considering you're trying to do the exact same with your percentages. Relabeling and trying to compound those statistics for your own cause is dishonest and ignorant at best.

I like how all this is written off, mostly without addressing anything that is said in the article.

Most of you refuse to see that you are as bad as you claim others are. Pathetic.
Uhmm, it's a press release by an anti-gw group.

Please explain to me how I am misrepresenting those statistics. Al Gore's basic stance is (and has been since the 70's) that global warming is happening and that mankind is helping to cause it. If you are trying to argue that the scientists polled here do not believe those two statements, please make that argument. I'd love to hear it.
It's a matter of the semantics you are using to present those statistics. The OP makes it sound like there is no consensus, you do the opposite and try to say that there is consensus by compounding the statistics and "simplifying" their labels to suit your need. Don't try to spin it, just take it for what it is, would you?
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,833
1
0
Most speakers there weren't scientists at all. The opening speech was given by a comedian. It might as well be a UFO conference, or an acupuncture trade show.

http://blogs.wsj.com/environme...d_environmentalcapital

ExxonMobil didn?t sponsor this conference,which runs through tomorrow afternoon. Instead, the bills are paid by an eclectic mix of free-market think tanks (including one from Pakistan), carbon-questioning NGOs, shareholder activists, and science groups critical of the U.N?s climate research.

Given that line-up, and the Heartland Institute?s stated mission??to discover and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems??two of the presentations seem a bit jarring: They?re given by Vladmir Putin?s science advisor and Mr. Putin?s former chief economic advisor.


The title of this article on their page should be enough to give them away as charlatans
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=20938

"Climate Realists Beat Alarmists in New York Debate"
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
71,158
20,847
136
Originally posted by: bbdub333

It's a matter of the semantics you are using to present those statistics. The OP makes it sound like there is no consensus, you do the opposite and try to say that there is consensus by compounding the statistics and "simplifying" their labels to suit your need. Don't try to spin it, just take it for what it is, would you?
It was a sarcastic response to a stupid post. If you look at hellokeith's posting history you will see that his threads deserve nothing more.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,916
172
106
Originally posted by: hellokeith
Link to article about John Coleman

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.

Speaking at the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change on Monday, Coleman sharply chastised those who further global warming alarmism. Coleman believes that the station he founded has been captured by alarmists, such as the Weather Channel?s Heidi Cullen, who has advocated revoking the license of meteorologists that believe global warming can be explained by cyclical weather patterns and not human activity.

The majority of the scientific community seems to agree that humans are contributing to climate change.
IMO, the bolded part doesn't belong in your quote.

It's not from John Coleman and is just a setup to a question (you deleted) by the author of the article. It's misleading IMO. I thought Coleman was saying it.

Forget MMGW, what's the point of some lawsuit?

How in the heck could that possibly clear anything up?

This country is nuts, now we gotta litigate science?

Fern
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
47,859
8,185
126
This country is nuts, now we gotta litigate science?
Science will say what science is told to say? That sounds disturbingly familiar.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,916
172
106
Originally posted by: babylon5
John Coleman can't feel any heat in his air conditioned huge mansion and limo.
See underlined portion above. You badly mis-spelled Al Gore's name.



:)

Fern
 

vhx

Golden Member
Jul 19, 2006
1,151
0
0
People still believe Global Warming is caused by humans even though it was reported 2007 was one of the coldest in awhile? Oh dear.

EDIT: Although that could be explained by some type of fluctuation as it probably normally does. Still doesn't help the argument that Mars, Jupiters moons and so forth are heating up as well.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
71,158
20,847
136
Originally posted by: vhx
People still believe Global Warming is caused by humans even though it was reported 2007 was one of the coldest in awhile? Oh dear.
I can't believe people are still trying to use this argument. Please go read up on this topic and you will see why what you said was stupid.
 

vhx

Golden Member
Jul 19, 2006
1,151
0
0
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: vhx
People still believe Global Warming is caused by humans even though it was reported 2007 was one of the coldest in awhile? Oh dear.
I can't believe people are still trying to use this argument. Please go read up on this topic and you will see why what you said was stupid.
Please link me to your Pro-Global Warming sites to prove your position as Google is not pulling up anything, thanks.
 

jman19

Lifer
Nov 3, 2000
11,105
492
126
Ah yes, you can always count on an unbiased source when you enter a hellokeith GW thread... :roll:

Anyone else thinks this guy gets a chubby when he cruises the web and sees that someone says people aren't responsible for GW?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
71,158
20,847
136
Originally posted by: vhx
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: vhx
People still believe Global Warming is caused by humans even though it was reported 2007 was one of the coldest in awhile? Oh dear.
I can't believe people are still trying to use this argument. Please go read up on this topic and you will see why what you said was stupid.
Please link me to your Pro-Global Warming sites to prove your position as Google is not pulling up anything, thanks.
First of all the data from NASA's GISS says that 2007 is tied for the second hottest year in recorded history. Their data does conflict with some other sources however that tend to put it at around the seventh hottest in history. That's not important though, because the flaw in your argument isn't about data.

Basically you are arguing that global warming isn't happening because it was cold last year. If you understand the normal fluctuations in temperature for any given year along with the fundamental theory behind global warming you will see why having a cold year means next to nothing when it comes to disproving the theory.
 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,820
1,123
126
Originally posted by: hellokeith
:thumbsup: to this fringe group of climate scientists who stand up against political correctness, ask the hard questions the IPCC won't ask, and deliver unbiased scientific data.
If you were anymore transparent, your name would be helloglass.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY