John Coleman, founder of the weather channel wants to sue Al Gore for fraud would you like to see that?

Question

John Coleman, founder of the weather channel wants to sue Al Gore for fraud would you like to see that?

Answer 1

I would absolutely love to see that, but it won't happen.  Coleman was only blowing smoke.  Even if it did happen and the court completely exonerated Gore of any wrongdoing and declared AGW a clear and present danger, the doubters would simply accuse the court of judicial activism or say the judge isn't a scientist (as if Coleman were, lol).

Here's why Coleman won't actually do it:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...

FYI, Al Gore's movie as already in court in the UK. A father (financed by big mining) claimed the movie was political and he didn't want his kids school to show it.  The father lost the case and the court found (in part):

[QUOTE]

        "The Film advances four main scientific hypotheses, each of which is very well supported by research published in respected, peer-reviewed journals and accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC:

        (1) global average temperatures have been rising significantly over the past half century and are likely to continue to rise ("climate change");

        (2) climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide ("greenhouse gases");

        (3) climate change will, if unchecked, have significant adverse effects on the world and its populations; and

        (4) there are measures which individuals and governments can take which will help to reduce climate change or mitigate its effects."

These propositions, Mr Chamberlain submits (and I accept), are supported by a vast quantity of research published in peer-reviewed journals worldwide and by the great majority of the world's climate scientists.

[END QUOTE]

Answer 2

Yes, because Gore is a fraud like all the GW idiots are!

Answer 3

No I think it would limit debate.  Don't care if you are dead wrong you have the right to tell us what you think.  BTW I have a right not to listen.

Answer 4

Well since all of the global warming alarmists call people who disagree with them deniers but time and time again refuse to debate the subject for fear of being shown up for what they are, greedy little people hungry for federal grants or a pathetic attempt to make themselves relevant a cout case is just the answer. Testifying under oath will let people on both sides of the issue see what happens when the 2 sides meet face to face. Remember in England it went to court and now when they show the movie they have to tell the kids in advance that there are many false statements in the movie "An Inconvenient Truth"

Answer 5

No, although I know John Coleman is wrong, I do not want to see a foolish old man lose everything in a hopeless battle.  The science is very one-sided on Gore's side.  Gore will awarded the costs of providing expert witnesses and Coleman will be bankrupt.  I think that it is highly unethical for Exxon to use Coleman as a pawn. If the costs went to Exxon rather than Coleman, then let the case proceed.

Answer 6

h**l yeah!

Answer 7

yes

Answer 8

I would love to see that jackass make more of a fool of himself by getting a lawsuit thrown out and probably counter-sued for abusing the judicial system.

Unfortunately Coleman has specifically said that he's not going to sue Gore.  Basically he's all talk.

Answer 9

Your answer is in this more honest question posted by Dana Master of  Science.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...

  Coleman is clearly a fraud, with no credentials in climate science research.   Coleman is just spouting, with no evidence.

Answer 10

Yes. I would love to see that dim-witted Al Gore attempt to defend his lies in court.

Answer 11

Funny how democrat and fraud go together.

Dancing madly backwards on a sea of air.

Answer 12

Yes, it would bring all the information to the press not just the "global warming " scares.

Answer 13

I would love to see that.Also take back money he's making on he's scam.

Answer 14

Yes, I’d like to see that, but not because John Coleman has any kind of legal case against Al Gore.  Likewise, every time evolution vs. creationism cases stroll through court, the public's understanding of the issues increase because they are able to see the balance of vast scientific evidence supporting evolution.

I’d love to see to scientific evidence for anthropogenic global warming laid out in court. Of course, people on the far right fringe will try to spin any verdict into their favor, just like they did with a similar case in England.[1] But the average person would benefit from seeing the balance of SCIENTIFIC evidence supporting anthropogenic global warming.

[1] That judge ruled that the film could continue to be shown in public schools in England. Justice Burton agreed with defense witness, Dr. Scott, that "Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate." The judge also ruled that the film advances four main scientific hypotheses, each of which is very well supported by research published in respected, peer-reviewed journals and accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC and did not amount to political indoctrination.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admi...

Answer 15

Oh yes. Plzzz Give us a link, or email it to me please.

Answer 16

I would love to see Coleman get embarrassed in court! Of course the plaintiff side wouldn't take too long with presentation of evidence, if the Heartland Institute was any indication of skeptical science. The defendant (Gore) would have thousands of PhD's as supporting subject matter experts, and that could take a long time.