2 replies to this topic

[Art Montemayor]

The following is a News story out today:

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.”

John Coleman's paper can be found at:

http://media.kusi.cl...al Warming1.pdf

[TroyH]

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.”

Thats a bit like saying: "How can just 9 parts per million of chlorine gas in air, be so dangerous. It's such a tiny amount"

Hardly seems like an argument that has a scientific understanding behind it. Why present an argument denouncing global warming as being an unscientific scare tactic, and then use unscientific points to try and support your position?

Seems counter productive to me.

The statosphere contains 90% of atmospheric ozone,and it only has an ozone concentration of about 5ppm (if my sources are correct), and yet I would hardly say it's impact on our climate is insignificant.

[djack77494]

I accept your point. Now why can't simple proofs be offered to support the hypothesis that the earth is undergoing a warming trend. Please follow your answer with additional proof to support the hypothesis that by reducing CO2 emissions (at incredible cost btw) mankind can stop, slow, or reverse that trend and that no alternative approaches will be better or less costly.

C'mon guys. This question has been around for a while. We should demand a model that can predict lond term climatic change and then superimpose the "no life on earth" scenario with mankind continues to pump CO2 into the atmosphere. With there beind so much at stake, why don't I hear of significant efforts in this direction. It will cost trillions which translates into some enormous level of human suffering to attempt a significant CO2 reduction. Show me the benefit. I'm tired at the approach I see way too often of the Greenhouse Group just shouting down anyone opposed to their views as being non-green or some other equally nasty negative. Put objective facts on the table and we'll be glad to discuss them. If you don't have them, then develop the data. Please see additional comments elsewhere in this forum including a challenge I presented several years ago and the minimal response that has occured. (Also, I think Art was merely presenting an alternate viewpoint from a respected news organization, rather than proposing one.)

Still waiting for the data,
Doug