Is Coleman still following through with this lawsuit against Al Gore?

Question

I was at a friends' house and they were watching Fox-there was some blurb about it. Rudy (my friends' husband who thinks it's all a scam) started to get gleeful about it until I reminded him that Coleman was a meteorologist who had to argue now with a bunch of climatologist's who are going to side with Al Gore. And that I was glad it would be more in the media and more skeptical 'reasoning' and/or doubt would be addressed by the arguments. But, I haven't really heard anything since. Does anyone know what's going on?

Answer 1

I think he would be hilarious if he sued.  The goofball who put out the Moon Landing conspiracy theory sued Buzz Aldrin for calling him an idiot.  The judge threw it out.  He sued the people who made the movie Capricorn One, claiming they stole his idea, and changed the date of the script to make it look like they were first (the movie was actually released before he submitted his manuscript to the publisher.  The judge threw it out.

I wonder what he could sue Gore for?  Even if Gore was wrong I don't think there's a law against faulty climate predictions.  Coleman is an unbelievable burnout case, if you're familiar with his history.  People like to say "He founded the weather channel.  He must be an expert at something".  Fact is, he founded it, lost money the first year, lost money the second year, sold it during the third year.  You need to try to imagine what kind of individual could manage not to make money with a cable TV station in the 1980's!

Answer 2

This isn't going to happen, it's BS even in the much heralded U.K. law suit the deniers like to push and claim as proof the documentary is false, the Judge actually said it was fundamentally correct a fact the deniers seem to forget to put in their lists of the faults the Judge picked out.

Did the Judge stop it being played, NO

One of the points the Judge picked out was that of the link between GW and reef die off, he said this wasn't supported by the evidence, but a paper in Science in Dec 07 (after the court case) shows the Judge was probable wrong on this point.

Answer 3

Coleman is still suing. It's just taht lawsuits take a long time to move, so don't hold your breath. Check out the source:

Answer 4

How the h**l did he find grounds for a lawsuit?

Answer 5

He never was following through, his comment was simply a cheap overdramatic stunt to get free media coverage.

Too bad, it would be fun to see him held accountable for his claims.  

I guess having to leave Weather.com and go work as a demo dollie weather reporter for a minor market TV station is evidence enough of what a heavy hitter Coleman is.  If I were him I wouldn't draw attention to myself.

Answer 6

Coleman is trying to figure out what to do with his own butt when it gets handed to him.

Answer 7

yes

Answer 8

Nope, in fact he was never planning to.  His initial statement was "If the lawyers will take the case – sue the people who sell carbon credits."  

http://www.thedailygreen.com/environment...

Of course, no lawyer would be dumb enough to take a loser of a case like that.  Since his initial statement, Coleman has backtracked even further.

"I'm not launching any lawsuits"

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/article...

As usual, Coleman is all talk and no substance.  That's why he's a TV weatherman, after all.

Answer 9

Brain M - Where in your link does it say Coleman has even begun to sue?  All it says is "He advocated suing those who sell carbon credits".  No where in the article, or any other article I've read does it actually say Coleman has even gone so far as to meet with a lawyer.

I suspect, Coleman is just blowing hot air.  He makes a ludicrous speculative statement (I hope doubters don't think he's a law expert too) and suddenly a bunch of AGW doubters are acting like he's gonna save the day by proving in court Gore is wrong.   So where's his legal team?  Where's his initial filing?  Where's anything more than his speculative statement?

Answer 10

Nope.

And, if he did, he'd be subject to a countersuit for "abuse of process".  He has absolutely no case.