Why do global warming deniers want to battle in the judicial system rather than scientific journals?

Question

A lot of noise is being made of weatherman John Coleman's suggestion that those who sell carbon credits (like Al Gore) should be sued.

“[I] have a feeling this is the opening,” Coleman said. “If the lawyers will take the case – sue the people who sell carbon credits. That includes Al Gore. That lawsuit would get so much publicity, so much media attention. And as the experts went to the witness stand and testified, I feel like that could become the vehicle to finally put some light on the fraud of global warming.”

http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20080303175301.aspx

If anthropogenic global warming (AGW) skeptics want to prove that AGW is a fraud, why don't they simply perform some research to prove that's the case? Why doesn't Coleman put his research where his mouth is? Why does virtually all climate science research conclude that humans are causing the current global warming if it's just a fraud?

http://www.norvig.com/oreskes.html

Answer 1

I would love for this to go to court and the media spread the news. Let the deniers and skeptics put their foot in their mouth for everyone to see. Maybe they'll end up getting sued for trying to destroy our habitat by denying anything is wrong...or that warming is a good thing-like we'll all be in Florida in the springtime or something.

Answer 2

Because there is no proof to be found that it doesn't exist, and people don't want to admit that. If there WAS research refuting AGW, naysayers would be spreading it everywhere.

Answer 3

We aren't denying anything, if anything you people are denying the idea that global warming is a simple theory.  There is just as much proof saying that global warming doesn't exit.  I hope that a bunch of scientist get together and do sue the heck out of Gore, finally something productive will come out of the judicial system. :)

Well I guess give me a few minutes and I can make a graph that holds just as much water as any of the c**p you can come up with.... And mine will be made with Crayons how cool will that be. Just give me your email address and I will send it to you :)

Best Regards,

         William T.   :D

Answer 4

Not many news contradict it so how else can we help show we don't think that gw is man made... i mean if someone was to keep quiet about smoking causing cancer then you would sue them to let you speak and show you're evidence to prove it is or not.... its a two way cycle the media only like man made gw because it causes fear and guilt.

Answer 5

Because their evidence is not very compelling to real climate scientists.

Answer 6

A legal battle would just be another tactic to delay and distract from taking serious action. Deniers and skeptics want to maintain the status quo and continue the destruction of the planet for short term profit and  expand their excessive materialism for person pleasure at the expense of a future generation's quality of life.

There is an interesting legal battle developing in Boulder Colorado about the size of homes that can be built... it will give great insight into how a legal battle will play out over property rights and setting limits on life styles.

I can't wait to see what will come of it, because if those that think they have a God given right to build 20,000 square foot houses for 2 win, and the legal system confirms their right to unlimited consumption at the expense of others we are all just pissing in the wind to try and save the planet.

Welcome to the New Guilded Age in 21st century America!

All you want for those that in most cases already have more than they need, and the h**l with everyone else.

How will the future generations be represented in this legal battle?

Who will represent the exploited critters that crawl, walk on all fours, swim, fly or just float?

No one will...

The legal personhood of the multinational corporations will win, at the expense of the once free and living things.

Answer 7

We've learned from the best. Liberals have been using the judicial system to get their way despite their political losses for decades.

Answer 8

I don't deny warming -- I WELCOME IT.

You want to control the change in temperature of a planet? Pretty d**n ambitious, isn't it?

In all of the history of the universe, has there ever been a planet that didn't have variation in temperature? So you don't think you can keep the planet the same temperature all the time, do you?

Right now, considering the earth's recent climate, which would be more beneficial, some heating or some cooling? If you had to choose heating or cooling, starting with where we are now, which do you think would be better for humans and other living things?

HEATING

Cold kills. Cold requires enormous expenditure of energy just to survive, causing more destruction, death, and pollution.

Some warming would be good for civilization, for humanity, and for the plants and animals of the earth.

Answer 9

It is not about the research (there is quite a bit) it is about the media attention towards that research.   The fact that you are either completely ignorant of the research, or in willful denial, supports this approach.   The media attention is quite one-sided, disproportionate to the facts.

Answer 10

If Gore can justify his carbon credits, he shouldn't have to worry.  Personally, I think lawyers are part of the problem and not the best solution and that is true of most things in our society.