Skip Nav
Relationships
The 1 Thing Happy Couples Do Every Day
Gift Guide
44 Book-Themed Gifts For the Literature-Lover in Your Life
Relationships
Why Do Guys Mess Up Healthy Relationships?

Weather Channel Founder Wants to Sue Al Gore

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. Do you think there's any merit to raising concerns about global alarmism? Would a lawsuit against Al Gore help the public determine fact from fiction?

Source

Around The Web
Join The Conversation
bellavita214 bellavita214 6 years
I can only sjake my head and sigh when I hear people say that global warming is not occuring as a product of humans. The overwhelming majority of the scientific community WORLDWIDE agrees that it is. How could this possibly be a conspiracy? Wake up people. Do the research. This is ridiculous and an embarrassing argument in America.
Halloween Halloween 7 years
I think that before anyone should blame anybody (or in fact say anything on this topic), they need to get off their lazy behinds and actually research and understand what's going on in the world. All of you are basing your opinions on other people's opinions and tidbits of information that isn't worth what comes out of your anus. So, in effect, you're regurgitating feces all over the Internet (that isn't it's intended purpose, either). So get off the Internet, get yourselves an education, and then talk as if you know something about the world in which we live. Live like you're not pathetic hypocrites.
weffie weffie 7 years
I assume those saying "we" should sue Al Gore work for the Weather Channel, then? Otherwise why would you have anything to do with the suit? ;) There are endless good reasons to conserve energy without even touching on the subject of global warming. None of us know for sure if the "alarmists" are right or just crying for attention... but it shouldn't matter... At the end of the day, we should all be taking better care of our earth regardless of whether we think we're affecting the weather!
mckrackin mckrackin 8 years
I will use my home city as a good example of the kind of road blocks to any kind of change people hit. I am in the Detroit area, the motor city, local politicians fight mass transit like it physically hurts them. They say things like "Detroit's the motor city, people love their cars, they won't use public transportation". In the meantime, we are one of the poorest big cities in the country, tell me how someone living below poverty levels is suppose to improve themselves if there is no way for them to get to a job, to job training, etc. Then there is the cost of maintaining, what anyone who has been here will tell you, the worst roads in the country. Add to it the Ecological impact and it makes no sense not to have good public transportation. But, the politicians say people love their cars...
thinkfirst thinkfirst 8 years
mckrackin; your 100% right on the Public Transport thing. They spend so much money making our highways wider and wider, and I've often wondered why there's not a commuter rail that goes down the center of every major highway? And now, in light of this conversation, part of the plan should be to identify regions where the erection of wind mills, right over the highway medians, could be deployed to power these railways.
mckrackin mckrackin 8 years
Thinkfirst, I agree 100%, some people are incapable of saying two things, I don't know, and I was wrong. As to things we can do, I got a real good one, while people can question the impact of electric cars and ethanol(which is clearly noy the answer), there is a much simpler solution... Public transportation. Most US big cities are deplorable in regards to it.
thinkfirst thinkfirst 8 years
mckrackin: I suspect, now this only my opinion, that the people who choose to NOT believe this is happening stick to their beliefs because it human nature to not want to ever be wrong. What they don't understand is that "it's ok to wrong", it's ok to make a mistake. What's not acceptable is to continue making that same mistake over and over again, because when you do sooner or later someone pays dearly for the error. Remember - the choices you make to meet your energy needs today will determine much of what our future generations will have as options and opportunities. Like - will their air be clean? Will their water be clean? Will the have to "fight" for their energy (oh wait, this is all happening now). This list is too long. So who gives a horse's tail about the reason, stop the bickering and force BIG(everything) to go clean! Ask the question everyday. Don't let anyone off the hook. It's easier than you think, but we must act as any winning team has ever acted in history. So you know. In my state they've embarked on a plan to construct 19 new Oil/Gas fired electrical generation plants while the nations largest offshore wind project (Cape Wind) undergoes extreme pressure by those claiming the that small white dots on the ocean's horizon will destroy their view. I live nearly 12 miles from the site of one the proposed fossil fuel plants and they're in disbelief when I speak out against, because they say I (and my family) am clearly out the "hot spot" range for pollution. My answer to them is - are my children any more important than those living next to the plant? Come on, get involved. If you need some help on how to stir up these waters and spark some action contact me (I assume by clicking on my icon and selecting "Make a Friend OR Send a Message") and I'll be more than happy to assist. ciao
mckrackin mckrackin 8 years
"We are skeptics because you, the "learned" community treat us like we aren't capable of understanding." You clearly are not capable of understanding. What I will always find baffling is people that imply being educated is bad thing... I provided direct quotes and links to support every FACT I have stated on here, while you people reply with nonsense that you never even bothered to look up the truthfullness of. More than likely you found your "in the 70's scientists said the world was cooling" line from someone else, here's some advice for you, they didn't research it either. What you are talking about, was a limited prediction, by a few people, as opposed to the overwhelming amount of support for the current argument. My big question for the admittedly under-educated is this, why are you so hellbent on believing this isn't happening? Is that big car really sooo nice? Does you dependancy on fossil fuel make you feel good? Is embracing new technologies a bad thing in your mind? If so, let's retrun to the stone age, because at some point someone then had to accept change, just as mankind must accept it again. It's about mankind evolving into our next technological cycle, don't fight it, embrace it.
Frank-Bi Frank-Bi 8 years
...and in fact, the "they predicted global cooling in the 1970s" canard is one of the top 10 denialist talking points listed on Skeptical Science: http://www.skepticalscience.com/They-predicted-an-ice-age-in-the-70s.html
Frank-Bi Frank-Bi 8 years
The "scientists predicted global cooling in 1970s" talking point has also been taken apart on Skeptical Science: http://www.skepticalscience.com/What-1970s-science-said-about-global-cooling.html
Frank-Bi Frank-Bi 8 years
Ah yes, the "Gish Gallop" -- when confronted with the facts of an issue, just forget about it and throw out a totally unrelated denalist talking point. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/debating/globetrotters.htm Just look at how the denialist talking points are being dished out: Abdussamatov's "Mars cooling" theory is based on 3 data points? Oops... never mind, hey look, Daily Tech's "Earth cooling" theory is based on 2 data points! Oops... hey look, scientists predicted global cooling in the 1970s! Oops, hey look, ... By the way, scientists did _not_ predict a global cooling in the 1970s: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/03/the-global-cooling-mole/
UnDave35 UnDave35 8 years
To all those who don't understand why we are skeptics, We are skeptics because you, the "learned" community treat us like we aren't capable of understanding. You provide data, and become upset when we question the way you have provided, and in some cases excluded, data. Case in point, just over 30 years ago, the "learned" community told us our pollutive ways were causing a global cooling and we were on our way to the next major ice age. These are the same "learned" individuals who are now screaming that we have caused some sort of major global warming... Ever heard of the boy who cried wolf?
UnDave35 UnDave35 8 years
To all those who don't understand why we are skeptics, We are skeptics because you, the "learned" community treat us like we aren't capable of understanding. You provide data, and become upset when we question the way you have provided, and in some cases excluded, data. Case in point, just over 30 years ago, the "learned" community told us our pollutive ways were causing a global cooling and we were on our way to the next major ice age. These are the same "learned" individuals who are now screaming that we have caused some sort of major global warming... Ever heard of the boy who cried wolf?
Frank-Bi Frank-Bi 8 years
whitefox: "I have watched and read many compelling arguments that make complete logical sense about the cyclicality of weather patterns since the earth has been around. ..." lolwut... "compelling" arguments? That make "complete logical sense"? Well, I guess that means we don't need those stinky, filthy things known as "facts" and "observations" and "reading up" after all. We just need to sit back and invoke the power of pure "logic" to learn about the earth's climate. Here's a compellingly compelling summary of the compelling arguments that have been made against the anthropogenic global warming theory: http://web.archive.org/web/20070425144007/http://www.thepoorman.net/tcs_parody/TCS_TheDayAfterTomorrow.html Ladies and gentlemen, be overwhelmed by the sheer compelling power of the sheer compelling logic.
mckrackin mckrackin 8 years
"Lol, Mckrackin, you're funny. " That's what I always say!
mckrackin mckrackin 8 years
"Please, whomever is writing this article, you must be careful about using sweeping terms such as, "The majority of the scientific community seems to agree that humans are contributing to climate change.' This is an unfounded and misleading statement of "fact". " It is absolutely irresponsible to suggest anything else! What lends weight to the existence of this potentially hazardous situation is the sheer number of scientists, from a broad scope of fields, but in particular the related fields, expressing their views, beliefs, and theories in support of what an overwhelming majority of climate scientist very vocally agree on. The only intent to mislead would be by people such as yourself, pretending to have no opinion on the matter, while doing their best to dismiss it. This is very likely a reality folks, time to step up to the plate, stop kicking and crying like insolent children, and do what is right. The worst case scenario is that some skeptics are right, and we have nothing to do with it, in which case were screwed either way. Being kinder to our planet helps us all in the long run regardless. Time to act like big boys and girls, put away our toys, and get down to fixing this, if we can. If the amount of money the oil companies, automakers, etc. spent on lobbying, was put to funding research, that they in turn would own, everybody could be happy, they still can live high on the hog, while my grandkids can have the world something like how I did. It just takes willingness to move on to the next phase of mankind, we have been through stone age, bronze, industrial revolution, let's make an effort not to stop here for too long.
JovianSkies JovianSkies 8 years
Lol, Mckrackin, you're funny. :ROTFL:
whitefox whitefox 8 years
Please, whomever is writing this article, you must be careful about using sweeping terms such as, "The majority of the scientific community seems to agree that humans are contributing to climate change.' This is an unfounded and misleading statement of "fact". I do not believe that you know that the majority of the scientific communtiy agrees to anything. Firstly, the "scientific community" covers a HUGE amount of people, most of whom are not experts in the field or even in a field RELATED to climate changes. These are the kinds of statements are irresponsible for journalists to make and it happens so frequently in the media. That being said, there are debates among meteorological experts about global warming - a subject I am very interested in. I believe in protecting the earth and taking care of it as best we can. Humans must be as responsible and careful with the earth and its creatures, while we also progress as humans must do. I have watched and read many compelling arguments that make complete logical sense about the cyclicality of weather patterns since the earth has been around. These very changes are what keeps the earth inhabitable. Change is constantly happening and has always happened. We've had deep freezes, floods, warm draughts, etc. The continents have shifted to what they are now...are they are still moving. It seems obvious to me that the answer lies somewhere in each side of the debate, that we must be responsible to not abuse our earth and its resources, but that Mohter Nature will do what she will whether we want her to or not.
mckrackin mckrackin 8 years
Nothing more to say? No more profound statements of unsubstantiated fact? Did y'all move on to another site to spread your lies and venom towards people who are committing no offense other than to try to save the planet your fat, lazy, spoiled arses choose to lounge about on?
Rattenfreund Rattenfreund 8 years
"You’re Majesty I’m just a poor illiterate country boy. Grandpa always told me if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it probably is a duck. The earth hasn’t warmed any in the last decade and in the last year the temperature had the largest drop in recorded history. Record cold has been worldwide. ..." I have a Ph.D. in linguistics but I would never presume to stick my head out a window, look at the weather and then tell a climatologist that his or her analysis is incorrect. At best I would be able to tell if it might rain later that day. (My grandfather told me that I should never force anything mechanical and never use my teeth as a tool. Does that make me a mechanical engineer?) The "facts" you cite (unsubstantiated facts, might I add) are based on data gathered by "educated idiots." You might want to let those experts analyze the data as well. Argue facts, present your opinion, but don't bring ad hominem attacks and name-calling to the discourse. It is impolite, unnecessary and it weakens your position. I am sure your grandfather would agree with me on that.
mckrackin mckrackin 8 years
And on that note, I leave you, please stay tuned for your regularly scheduled misinformed baffoon.
mckrackin mckrackin 8 years
Part 5: Do I really need to continue???? Hadley has 2007 as a bit cooler(no where near the coldest on record or even in the last 30 years), here's what else they have to say: Per links from the Climate Research Unit(as in HadCRUT3) "In fact, over the last 100 years, CO2 concentrations have increased by 30% due mainly to human-induced emissions from fossil fuels. Because CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the increased concentrations have contributed to the recent warming and probably most of the warming over the last 50 years." "The bottom line is that changes in solar activity do affect global temperatures. However, what research also shows is that increased greenhouse gas concentrations have a much greater effect than changes in the Sun’s energy over the last 50 years" "Another way of looking at the warming trend is that 1999 was a similar year to 2007 as far the cooling effects of La Niña are concerned. The 1999 global temperature was 0.26 °C above the 1961-90 average, whereas 2007 is expected to be 0.41 °C above this average, 0.15 °C warmer than 1999. " http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/index.html
mckrackin mckrackin 8 years
Part 4: Perhaps you should read into things a bit deeper... Skeptics love to site RSS documentation for 2007, which originally stated it was one ofthe coldest year on record, what you sheep never bother to do is catch the update: "Last January, I made a small change in the way TLT is calculated that reduced the absolute Temperatures by 0.1K. But I only used the new method for 2007 (the error). When the data are merged with MSU, MSU and AMSU are forced to be as close as possible to each other over the 1999-2004 period of overlap. This caused the error to show up as a downward jump in JAnuary 2007. To fix the problem, I reprocessed the 1998-2006 AMSU data using the new code (like I should have done in the first place), and merged it with the MSU data. We would like to thank John Christy and Roy Spencer, who were very helpful during the diagnosis process. Carl Mears, RSS, January 16 2008" Look it up yourself, I find their site to be a pain in the arse.
mckrackin mckrackin 8 years
Part 3: When good research goes bad... Skeptics love to refer RSS(actually should be REMSS), as in the following: "The RSS MSU linear trend extracted from the 1998-2007 interval is -0.48 °C per century of cooling! Numerically, it's almost the same trend that we assign to the 20th century but with the opposite sign. The RSS MSU data imply that 2007 was 0.12 °C cooler than the already cool year 2006. Other teams will generate qualitatively compatible results but substantially different numbers, raising doubts about the reliability of the temperature measurement even in the modern era." http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/modules.php?name=AvantGo&file=print&sid=588 This is where you get your repeated "2007 was the coldest year on record" mumbo jumbo... What you never see is this: "Last January, I made a small change in the way TLT is calculated that reduced the absolute Temperatures by 0.1K. But I only used the new method for 2007 (the error). When the data are merged with MSU, MSU and AMSU are forced to be as close as possible to each other over the 1999-2004 period of overlap. This caused the error to show up as a downward jump in JAnuary 2007. To fix the problem, I reprocessed the 1998-2006 AMSU data using the new code (like I should have done in the first place), and merged it with the MSU data. We would like to thank John Christy and Roy Spencer, who were very helpful during the diagnosis process. Carl Mears, RSS, January 16 2008" http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2648 I would reference the remss site, but quite honestly it is very messy.
DIY Pinecone Fire Starter
Cute Office Plants
Homemade Drain Cleaner
DIY Cleaning Products
Is Too Faced Cruelty Free?
List of Things to Dispose Of
Homemade Toilet Bowl Cleaner

POPSUGAR, the #1 independent media and technology company for women. Where more than 75 million women go for original, inspirational content that feeds their passions and interests.

From Our Partners
Latest Love
All the Latest From Ryan Reynolds