Archives

Weather Channel Founder: Sue Al Gore for Fraud (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,337710,00.html)

http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/501/ice1.jpg FOX News - March 14, 2008

Finally, we can solve this question once and for all. -Ed.

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."…http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,337710,00.html

Science doesn't get decided by debate.

Say it ain't so John!!!!

John Coleman was the local ABC TV weather personality here in Chicagoland for many many years. He must be 70+ years old by now, as is Joel Daily, who was his on-air foil. Joel Daily still makes vinette reports on local TV stations on occaision. I remember watching the two of them when they mentioned John would be leaving for a Cable TV venture (god I must be dating myself!). I am supprised he is so backward in this regard. And who is he to but into a buisness arrangement that he is not involved. He surely isn't Elliot Spitzer, or any other law enforcement official.

He should also watch the NOVA episode on "Global Dimming". If we continue the cold spell, it will prove nothing. Its could easily be an oscillatory response to a step functional increase in CO2 in the past decades. And when the other side of the ring occurs, there will probably be another 5 hurricane year at or near the peak. And the period could be decades, as fresh water is injected into the Iceland Gap again.

I can't stand John Coleman. He's a weather forecaster for an independent station in San Diego (KUSI) and he is such an annoying cook to watch, I can't give an ounce of credibility to him just for that.

I can't stand John Coleman. He's a weather forecaster for an independent station in San Diego (KUSI) and he is such an annoying cook to watch, I can't give an ounce of credibility to him just for that.


I wonder if this is the same John Coleman. We actually have a person named John Coleman in the company I work for, too.

Science doesn't get decided by debate.

I have a feeling this will get a lot of hostile responses. However, bad science must be debated (and hopefully debunked) - a few weeks ago, a huge group of scientists met in New York exactly to challenge global warming. The climate change advocates don't exactly have accuracy on their side - they were wrong about global cooling 30 years ago, and with this many scientists saying "Humans aren't doing anything", there has to be a debate, to determine which science is actually correct.

"People only insist that a debate stop when they are afraid of what might be learned if it continues." - George Will

Yep, same guy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Coleman_(meteorologist)

Science doesn't get decided by debate.

Science doesn't get decided by reaching consensus, either.

I'm sure we all remember a British court ruling "An Inconvenient Truth" to be
"not an impartial analysis of the science of climate change".

More bad news for Al Gore: the late Arthur C Clarke in his novel 2001: A Space Oddsey talked about Dave reading newspapers that were updated every few minutes (this is 1968)....I'm afraid Clarke invented the internet and WiFi :D


Somewhat on a tangent...
"People only insist that a debate stop when they are afraid of what might be learned if it continues." - George WillUnlike Rush Limbaugh, George Will is a professional journalist, so I'm dissapointed he takes a source like CNW at face value in an article regurgitating (http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:TicuJI7w--8J:www.pacinst.org/topics/integrity_of_science/case_studies/hummer_vs_prius.pdf+george+will&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=us) the Dust to Dust story

Maybe I'm just too chicken, but I've decided not to debate global warming anymore, though I still research it. A trial now would end the debate as much as the Scopes trial did.

With my friends and family, I reframe the debate. In 1900 the world population was estimated to be 1.65 billion, today it's 6.6 billion. Do we need to depopulate the world, no; do we need to conserve our resources and be mindful of our impact, yes.

For what its worth...

Keith

Food for thought to always consider no matter what opinion you hold...what if you're wrong?

Interesting video with regards to this (some of you have probably seen this already), http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ&feature=related

a few weeks ago, a huge group of scientists met in New York exactly to challenge global warming. The climate change advocates don't exactly have accuracy on their side - they were wrong about global cooling 30 years ago, and with this many scientists saying "Humans aren't doing anything", there has to be a debate, to determine which science is actually correct.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/tobacco-and-oil-pay-for-climate-conference-790474.html

I don't trust Exxon scientists.

Somewhat on a tangent...
Unlike Rush Limbaugh, George Will is a professional journalist, so I'm dissapointed he takes a sourse like CNW at face value in an article regurgitating (http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:TicuJI7w--8J:www.pacinst.org/topics/integrity_of_science/case_studies/hummer_vs_prius.pdf+george+will&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=us) the Dust to Dust story

We agree again Chuck, I was very let down to see Will site the CNW report. I don't read him often (the Boulder Camera slips in an op/ed from Will every few months) but I grew up thinking of him as better than that.:(

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/tobacco-and-oil-pay-for-climate-conference-790474.html

I don't trust Exxon scientists.

I had a hunch you'd bring this up. Your article mentions no facts or figures, just blind accusations. The facts are otherwise.

The Heartland Institute has 2,700 donors, and gets about 16 percent of its income from corporations. Heartland gets less than 5 percent of its income from all energy-producing companies combined.

Besides, it's no crime for a think tank or advocacy group to accept corporate funding. In fact, corporations that fail to step forward and assure that sensible voices are heard in this debate are doing their shareholders, and their countries, a grave disservice.

I stand by my sig.

That right there is not junk science. Just comment badly about a ladys undies.

And I don't care who your are. That there is funny. :)

Science doesn't get decided by debate.

Nice quote; Science if often like philosphy. We can never know something is right, but we can throw an idea on the table and then trash it. Whoever comes up with an idea that can't be trashed will be assumed to be correct. Hasn't happened yet.

Problem with science debates, and it would be even worse in a court, is that most show up to defend their ideas. Its those who don't participate, but just listen who will probably think of a more correct answer, but then they will be a defender in the next round.

Science doesn't get decided by reaching consensus, either.

There was both debate and concensus on arriving at the current number of planets in our solar system, although I forget what number the scientists finally settled upon.

Personally, I don't go out of my way much for global warming, but being cheap and conserving resources nearly always has the same effect anyway. I don't pay extra for carbon offsets, but I do pay extra for good (organic, local, whole, etc.) food, which has other benefits as well -- it's a lot cheaper than cancer or heart disease.

There was both debate and concensus on arriving at the current number of planets in our solar system, although I forget what number the scientists finally settled upon.

Personally, I don't go out of my way much for global warming, but being cheap and conserving resources nearly always has the same effect anyway. I don't pay extra for carbon offsets, but I do pay extra for good (organic, local, whole, etc.) food, which has other benefits as well -- it's a lot cheaper than cancer or heart disease.

Agreed. Being a cheapass is what actually got me into hypermiling in the first place. Of course by now it's less of a way to save nine cents at the pump than it is actually a way of life - lower stress levels, a relaxed drive, and of course, getting 50 instead of 35 MPG.

With all the positive side effects such as reduced medical bills (no blood pressure medication necessary LOL), helping the environment and sending less money overseas, there's no reason for me to quit.

I had a hunch you'd bring this up.

Yeah, I'm like the brother-in-law who overstays his welcome. ;)

The Heartland Institute has 2,700 donors, and gets about 16 percent of its income from corporations. Heartland gets less than 5 percent of its income from all energy-producing companies combined.

Yep, that's what they tell us. Given that they have not publicly released their funding sources since 2005, I guess we have to trust them on that. I'm sure it's all on the up-and-up. :)

What we do know is that historically these types of groups accept a good chunk of their revenues from large foundations. Foundations like:

Scaife Foundations

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Scaife_Foundations

The Mellon fortune is built on at least 5 pillars; the family's ownership of Gulf Oil Corporation, the family's monopoly ownership of Alcoa and Alcan going back to 1891...............

Olin Foundation

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=John_M._Olin_Foundation

The Foundation is financed by the Olin chemical and munitions fortune with assets estimated at $90 million............

Koch Family Foundations

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Claude_R._Lambe_Charitable_Foundation

Funding for the foundations comes from the conglomerate Koch Industries, the "nation's largest privately held energy company, with annual revenues of more than $25 billion.....The foundations are financed via the oil and gas fortunes of Fred G. Koch.

Bradley, Coors, and so on and so forth........there are a lot of them.

Business interests will spend money to protect their business, and fossil fuel energy is no exception. Given that this is a scientific matter however, and a general public demand that scientific inquiry be free of pressure from partial groups, a parlor game of "obscure the funding" is set up to grant the appearance of impartiality. "Heartland Institute funded by foundations"......sounds innocuous enough right? But a simple scratch below the surface reveals the money trail. Climate change legislative restrictions are a threat to selling remaining reserves.

It's true that you are unlikely to see Exxon's name mentioned as significant sponsors and contributors to groups like the Heartland Institute. These interests are smart and have a lot of money, and they know there is more to be gained by a perceived lack of involvement. So they quietly aid the foundations.

Besides, it's no crime for a think tank or advocacy group to accept corporate funding. In fact, corporations that fail to step forward and assure that sensible voices are heard in this debate are doing their shareholders, and their countries, a grave disservice.

True, just as it is no crime for Philip Morris to mislead the public on nicotine addiction by supporting their own symposiums on the subject. It's wrong though.

The IPCC does not receive funding from energy. I therefore trust them more.

There was both debate and concensus on arriving at the current number of planets in our solar system, although I forget what number the scientists finally settled upon.

..........


Good point--both debate and concensus are key to the scientific process. They matter at different phases of the scientific process though. Casual observation suggests that the CO2/global warming theory has been passing through the debate phase at least since the 1980's and is approaching scientific concensus in terms of its existence. Serious debate continues about the magnitude of warming. It would be a lot easier to be sure if we had another earth to experiment on ;).

Food for thought to always consider no matter what opinion you hold...what if you're wrong?

Interesting video with regards to this (some of you have probably seen this already), http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ&feature=related

Whaddayaknow - Pascal's Wager for human-caused climate change!

There was both debate and concensus on arriving at the current number of planets in our solar system, although I forget what number the scientists finally settled upon.


That number has NOT been scientifically determined then.

Good point--both debate and concensus are key to the scientific process.

Huh? Since when? Where are people getting this idea??

Good point--both debate and concensus are key to the scientific process. They matter at different phases of the scientific process though. Casual observation suggests that the CO2/global warming theory has been passing through the debate phase at least since the 1980's and is approaching scientific concensus in terms of its existence. Serious debate continues about the magnitude of warming. It would be a lot easier to be sure if we had another earth to experiment on ;).

It's strange that the debate is rather young considering the theory is over 100 years old (http://web.lemoyne.edu/~giunta/Arrhenius.html).

Huh? Since when? Where are people getting this idea??

I'm not sure you would actually say it is PART of the scientific process. Maybe it's just semantics here, but lets say they are common, more the exception than the rule.

I think that the law suit is ridiculous.


--des

Yeah, I'm like the brother-in-law who overstays his welcome. ;)



Yep, that's what they tell us. Given that they have not publicly released their funding sources since 2005, I guess we have to trust them on that. I'm sure it's all on the up-and-up. :)

What we do know is that historically these types of groups accept a good chunk of their revenues from large foundations. Foundations like:

Scaife Foundations

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Scaife_Foundations

The Mellon fortune is built on at least 5 pillars; the family's ownership of Gulf Oil Corporation, the family's monopoly ownership of Alcoa and Alcan going back to 1891...............

Olin Foundation

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=John_M._Olin_Foundation

The Foundation is financed by the Olin chemical and munitions fortune with assets estimated at $90 million............

Koch Family Foundations

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Claude_R._Lambe_Charitable_Foundation

Funding for the foundations comes from the conglomerate Koch Industries, the "nation's largest privately held energy company, with annual revenues of more than $25 billion.....The foundations are financed via the oil and gas fortunes of Fred G. Koch.

Bradley, Coors, and so on and so forth........there are a lot of them.

Business interests will spend money to protect their business, and fossil fuel energy is no exception. Given that this is a scientific matter however, and a general public demand that scientific inquiry be free of pressure from partial groups, a parlor game of "obscure the funding" is set up to grant the appearance of impartiality. "Heartland Institute funded by foundations"......sounds innocuous enough right? But a simple scratch below the surface reveals the money trail. Climate change legislative restrictions are a threat to selling remaining reserves.

It's true that you are unlikely to see Exxon's name mentioned as significant sponsors and contributors to groups like the Heartland Institute. These interests are smart and have a lot of money, and they know there is more to be gained by a perceived lack of involvement. So they quietly aid the foundations.



True, just as it is no crime for Philip Morris to mislead the public on nicotine addiction by supporting their own symposiums on the subject. It's wrong though.

The IPCC does not receive funding from energy. I therefore trust them more.Normally, I don't want to believe studies are funded by parties with a vested interest, then I see this: 'Big Tobacco' funded lung cancer study (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23818053/)

Normally, I don't want to believe studies are funded by parties with a vested interest, then I see this: 'Big Tobacco' funded lung cancer study (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23818053/)

When you think about it, every opinion is biased. It's biased with what the author values and what facts and opinions are weighted, acknowledged, and ignored. Plus, it can be biased externally as with the Big Tobacco funding.

For that matter, every opinion and study has a potential interest behind it. Besides the obvious conflicts of interest, the interest could be to get published, make money, get famous, get a good grade, or just get people to think.

My point is, it's not enough to just say "that opinion is biased" and summarily ignore it. What matters is whether or not the thesis holds up in spite of those biases and whether or not those biases undermine the point (in the case of the Big Tobacco study or our favorite CNW article, they do undermine the point). In fact, there may be a few grand bits of truth in even the most blatantly biased of studies, or at least points that need to be acknowledged and addressed.

Knee-jerk reactions, grand sweeping generalizations, and ignoring others gets us nowhere.