Weather Channel Founder Wants to Sue Al Gore

[kfrost06]

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.

[kfrost06]

Hurray for Mr. Coleman, glad to see someone take on these fear mongering idiots!

[Pooks]

What do u mean global warming isn't true..
ever since 5th grade they've been feeding me that sh*t..
and making me read articles.. and watch discovery channel shows..
n now u're telling me it was a theory all a long, and maybe a false one?

I've been brainwashed since 5th grade to think about global warming.
Now I have to be open to the idea that it was possibly all bullcrap.

[Dizz28]

it's funny how many of the Global Warming proponents switched from saying "Global Warming" to "Global Climate Change" instead due to the recent record winters and snow fall this past year. I know of three records that have been broken in the notheast this year alone for snowfall and temperatures, could be more I just know of 3 for sure.

[Kärnfysikern]

Dizz they have been saying climate change for a while. Maby the media is changing what they say, but not the scientists.

As for records, the winter in sweden has been the warmest since 1900 and all of europe has had a very mild winter while asia and america is unusualy cold. Point is, you cant say anything about climate by the weather during such a restricted period as one year. Doing so is just as bogus as claiming one unusualy hot year is proof of global warming.

[RANA]

What do u mean global warming isn't true..
ever since 5th grade they've been feeding me that sh*t..
and making me read articles.. and watch discovery channel shows..
n now u're telling me it was a theory all a long, and maybe a false one?

I've been brainwashed since 5th grade to think about global warming.
Now I have to be open to the idea that it was possibly all bullcrap.

Hell, remember in the mid 70's, Global Freezing?

[AaronJM1984]

Its about time someone calls these treehuggers (gore) on their B.S.

My old room mates used to watched gore's movie religiously and preach to me, meanwhile their driving their huge SUVs all over town, thats what I get for living in SF!!

[barondumonde]

**** Gore. He's a scumbag.

[Prada]

Dizz they have been saying climate change for a while. Maby the media is changing what they say, but not the scientists.

As for records, the winter in sweden has been the warmest since 1900 and all of europe has had a very mild winter while asia and america is unusualy cold. Point is, you cant say anything about climate by the weather during such a restricted period as one year. Doing so is just as bogus as claiming one unusualy hot year is proof of global warming.

Thank you.

[Dizz28]

Dizz they have been saying climate change for a while. Maby the media is changing what they say, but not the scientists.

As for records, the winter in sweden has been the warmest since 1900 and all of europe has had a very mild winter while asia and america is unusualy cold. Point is, you cant say anything about climate by the weather during such a restricted period as one year. Doing so is just as bogus as claiming one unusualy hot year is proof of global warming.

But "they" seem to.... "It's been the hottest year on record" "record highs this year" = Global warming

I've heard this arguement before

[Kärnfysikern]

But "they" seem to.... "It's been the hottest year on record" "record highs this year" = Global warming

I've heard this arguement before

Yes but "they" in this case is the media. But what the scientists say is what is important not what the media say.

[kfrost06]

Yes but "they" in this case is the media. But what the scientists say is what is important not what the media say.

What the scientist say is very important and the scientist say that Global warming now called climate change is a load of crap. When I say scientist I mean real scientist not the self proclaimed scientist like Al Gore.

[kfrost06]

Its about time someone calls these treehuggers (gore) on their B.S.

My old room mates used to watched gore's movie religiously and preach to me, meanwhile their driving their huge SUVs all over town, thats what I get for living in SF!!

Thats one thing that really burns me about these people, they are so ready to tell everyone else how to live yet they live a life of hypocrisy. I have seen SUVs with greenpeace bumper stickers

[Kärnfysikern]

What the scientist say is very important and the scientist say that Global warming now called climate change is a load of crap. When I say scientist I mean real scientist not the self proclaimed scientist like Al Gore.

But you can not say that only the "sceptics" (I dont like that word because any scientists should be a sceptic by nature) are real scientists. Nobody with half a brain listens to everything Al Gore say. But a majority of climate scientists do think a problem exist that we need to deal with. It would be presumptions to ignore that by saying they arent real scientists.

The two big question marks left seems to be the influence of the sun and cloud formation/precipation. I belive its fully possible that many climate scientists are approximating away those two factors to recklessly and that we might find that co2 is a lesser player than many think.

But right now we should be concerned, because if its true and we do nothing it will cost alot. If its not true but we limit fossil fuel usage everybody wins in the long run. The best course of action is to restrict fossil fuels.

[RA]

But right now we should be concerned, because if its true and we do nothing it will cost alot. If its not true but we limit fossil fuel usage everybody wins in the long run. The best course of action is to restrict fossil fuels.

I disagree. I dont want our economy wrecked over a made up farce.

[AaronJM1984]

If the Fed. Gov. was smart they'd start introducing hydrogen powered cars. Obviously the whole country can't switch from oil to hydrogen overnight, but we could over the next 10-20 years. The only reason they don't do this is because they have their hands in the pockets of all of the oil companies. We've had the technology for years to operate all kinds of machines using hydrogen, you mean to tell me they can't make a car to do the same. We could rid ourselves of this whole fossil fuels B.S.

Instead of gas stations they'd have water stations, or better yet, fill up your car with the garden hose, lol

[Dizz28]

Hydrogen powered cars for the masses are still a long ways away. It takes energy to produce H and O2 from water... Energy produced by fossil fuels

[AaronJM1984]

Hydrogen powered cars for the masses are still a long ways away. It takes energy to produce H and O2 from water... Energy produced by fossil fuels

good point, never hear of people working towards that tho

[Kratos]

I disagree. I dont want our economy wrecked over a made up farce.

Our economy is beng wrecked by rising fossil fuel costs, due to increased global use relative to production. The best thing we could do is invest in nuke power plants, wind solar, and renuable energy. Drive down the cost of electricity and use that to heat our homes. Keep the pressure on auto-makers to create alternatives to gasoline. Be prepared for change when gas gets too expensive and it won't cause an economic crisis.

Either that or burn all the fossil fuels before china and inda get to them.

[AaronJM1984]

I think we should do away with drive-thrus
you may laugh but think about all the gas burned by people sitting in the drive thru lines at fast food rest. and pharmacies and what not

[Kärnfysikern]

I disagree. I dont want our economy wrecked over a made up farce.

It wont be wrecked, it will probably stimulate the economy if done right. A new tech boom is quite possible. That modern countries still rely on burning filthy coal is mind boggling, especially when it is not needed.

Hydrogen powered cars for the masses are still a long ways away. It takes energy to produce H and O2 from water... Energy produced by fossil fuels

Hydrogen isnt very efficient either as a energy carrier. To much losses in production, to hard to handle ect. Batteries are far more efficient and storage capacity increases all the time.

Our economy is beng wrecked by rising fossil fuel costs, due to increased global use relative to production. The best thing we could do is invest in nuke power plants, wind solar, and renuable energy. Drive down the cost of electricity and use that to heat our homes. Keep the pressure on auto-makers to create alternatives to gasoline. Be prepared for change when gas gets too expensive and it won't cause an economic crisis.

Either that or burn all the fossil fuels before china and inda get to them.

Amen.

[kfrost06]

Speaking of saving the environment, have you seen the new "smartcar"


That is a real car and no Mr. Bean is not driving it. Could that be the future? I have a hard time visualizing Americans driving that. As you know Kärnfysikern I am all for the environment I just do not believe the global warming hype. To make a real difference the fuel economy of cars will have to change and we Americans have a love affair with cars and that would not catch on unless gas went to $10/gallon and then it would look more like this...

[Kratos]

I think the future is going to be battery mobiles, when NiMh batteries make their way into cars ranges of 300 miles or more can be expected. Who drives more than 300 miles on a typical day? Then your second car may be a gas/electric hybrid or more likely replace the gas with the biofuel of the day or natural gas or even hydrogen. Anything that can be refueled for longer trips. Smart cars arn't all that much more efficent for highway (american style driving).

[AaronJM1984]

What about gas turbons?? If they can get the cost of ceramics down

[Kratos]

What about gas turbons?? If they can get the cost of ceramics down

turbons can be quite efficient but are ideally suited to constant speed use. The only way a gas turbine would be efficent in a car would be as part of a hybrid power train where the electric motors exclusivly drive the wheels. At that point though you could just use a fuel cell.

It has been tried before GM, Chrysler experimented with turbons and they were grossly inefficent in trafffic because the engine is reluctant to change speed. But its fun blasting the paint off the car behind you (which did happen).

[lotaquestions]

global warming is a myth used to push political interest of a certain party. the sad part is that we probally going to have a president elected b/c of their stance on a myth. the next election(2012) will probally be won on protecting our nation from aliens or bigfoot. "now that is change that will make you sick"

[AaronJM1984]

global warming is a myth used to push political interest of a certain party. the sad part is that we probally going to have a president elected b/c of their stance on a myth. the next election(2012) will probally be won on protecting our nation from aliens or bigfoot. "now that is change that will make you sick"

YES! more conservatives, I say we lock up treehuggers and throw away the key, LOL

[Kärnfysikern]

Speaking of saving the environment, have you seen the new "smartcar"


That is a real car and no Mr. Bean is not driving it. Could that be the future? I have a hard time visualizing Americans driving that. As you know Kärnfysikern I am all for the environment I just do not believe the global warming hype. To make a real difference the fuel economy of cars will have to change and we Americans have a love affair with cars and that would not catch on unless gas went to $10/gallon and then it would look more like this...

Smart cars might be a option in europe and asia, I wouldnt mind owning one if I ever feel I need to get a drivers license. But in america it seems hopeless. Seems like there are two options. Either the current fleet of cars has to become horribly uneconomic because of oil prices or alternatives with the same performance has to enter the market. I predict it will be a combination of the two. I would be suprised if battery cars arent a pretty hefty fraction of the car market in 20 years and I would be even more suprised if they have a max range less than 150 miles on one charge.

[Kratos]

YES! more conservatives, I say we lock up treehuggers and throw away the key, LOL

I'm not a treehugger, I just see the writing on the wall that we have only so many years to get off oil for supply issues. If we diversify our energy options it can only be good for the security of the economy. You don't want the middle east to have control over our economic destiny. I think that's a cause even the most conservative conservatives can get behind. We don't need to get involved in the politics of energy rich nations either, we can just let them kill themselves off instead of wasting military resources.

[AaronJM1984]

I'm not a treehugger, I just see the writing on the wall that we have only so many years to get off oil for supply issues. If we diversify our energy options it can only be good for the security of the economy. You don't want the middle east to have control over our economic destiny. I think that's a cause even the most conservative conservatives can get behind. We don't need to get involved in the politics of energy rich nations either, we can just let them kill themselves off instead of wasting military resources.

Definately wasn't referring to you Kratos, I like what you have to share, very informative.

[Kärnfysikern]

I'm not a treehugger, I just see the writing on the wall that we have only so many years to get off oil for supply issues. If we diversify our energy options it can only be good for the security of the economy. You don't want the middle east to have control over our economic destiny. I think that's a cause even the most conservative conservatives can get behind. We don't need to get involved in the politics of energy rich nations either, we can just let them kill themselves off instead of wasting military resources.

Its so obviously true that its hard to understand why no presidential candidate wants to deal with it. Are they bought or ignorant?

[RANA]

I am a strict conservative; we need to get away from foreign oil ASAP.

[SMCengineer]

Getting away from foreign oil and possibly oil all together would be beneficial for national defense and the economy, but it's not the same issue as AGW and shouldn't be considered as such. Government mandates and caps on co2 will have adverse affects on the economy. You can argue all day long about how it may help the economy by encouraging new technologies, but the truth is that free markets will always produce the best and newest technologies. Government intervention will only hamper progress and to do it the name of uncertain global warming is absolute insanity.

[Kratos]

Getting away from foreign oil and possibly oil all together would be beneficial for national defense and the economy, but it's not the same issue as AGW and shouldn't be considered as such. Government mandates and caps on co2 will have adverse affects on the economy. You can argue all day long about how it may help the economy by encouraging new technologies, but the truth is that free markets will always produce the best and newest technologies. Government intervention will only hamper progress and to do it the name of uncertain global warming is absolute insanity.

Yeah I'm a fan of the free market but there are some cases where you need definate intervention. This just may be one of those cases. I think the goverment helping to get some nukes up and running would be a good idea. When energy cost skyrockets it can happen fairly quickly and there can be some lag time of seveal years for this type of action.

[kfrost06]

Getting away from foreign oil and possibly oil all together would be beneficial for national defense and the economy, but it's not the same issue as AGW and shouldn't be considered as such. Government mandates and caps on co2 will have adverse affects on the economy. You can argue all day long about how it may help the economy by encouraging new technologies, but the truth is that free markets will always produce the best and newest technologies. Government intervention will only hamper progress and to do it the name of uncertain global warming is absolute insanity.

^^^My thoughts exactly! which of course means, brilliant post