Global Warming - Al Gore sued by 30.000 Scientists

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."

Read more here:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,337710,00.html

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• global warming
• al gore
• Impeach bush
• corrupt government
• corrupt legislation
• martial law
• terrorist activities
• gun control
• shadow government
• bilderberg group
• cia exposed
• skull & bones
• whistleblower
• constitution
• police state
• september 11
• terrorist attack
• usama bin laden
• george bush
• caught lying
• world trade center
• wtc 7
• new world order
• rockefeller family
• rothschild dynasty

[mrnevernice]

I'd really like to see more evidence of the 30,000 scientists and what they are scientists in. Coleman himself has no education in the field of climates. Also, to what the other guy was saying, water vapor is also a green house gas.

[Nonpeon]

@darliegoddess

What?

[darliegoddess]

This has been debunked.

[turbojb]

I love that they put 30 "." 000 instead of 30 "," 000. So funny.

[Biofoolz]

Note: "doesn't" should have been "isn't."

[Biofoolz]

@nightdriver True. Perhaps if he were we wouldn't have such problems with misinformation. =P The difference between Coleman and Gore, both non-scientists, is that one is generally supported by peer-reviewed literature and the other doesn’t. To make an analogy, its okay if I make claims about heart disease which are supported by most scientists. If I’m making claims that aren’t, though, I’m going to need some solid, peer-reviewed research of my own (and probably some credentials) to support them.

[nightdriver]

@Biofoolz John Coleman isn't a scientist either.

[Biofoolz]

LOL at the host saying CO2 is no different from "basic water vapor." Someone needs to retake a high school chemistry course.

[Biofoolz]

@37712 It's regretful that we couldn't continue this talk, but I understand. I'll just part by saying that Al Gore isn't a scientist, and therefore cannot be a disgrace to science as he has doesn't contribute to the literature on climate change. He's nothing more than a spokesperson for an issue that arose from scientific inquiry. However, he isn't the worst spokesperson AGW could have, as, while he does make mistakes, he oftentimes isn't in error (e.g. An Inconvenient Truth had few errors).

[Biofoolz]

@jaykulls I'd even go one further and say that, in scientific issues where there is a clear consensus of evidence and among scientists, you don't even have opposing sides. In political matters, it's appropriate to do that. In scientific ones, which aren't a matter of opinion, the news shouldn't give equal weight to mainstream scientists and skeptics when skeptics are a very small minority and have little to no evidence in their favor.