Would a Libel Suit against Algore be a good thing?

Question

If Algore was under oath to tell the truth, to answer questions from climate experts like Dr. William Gray, would Algore stick to his story, or would he have to admit that there is no conclusive data to show that the Earth will be warmer or colder 5 years from now?

Would he have to admit that he had to use animated polar bears in his movie because real polar bears are doing very well living in the wild?

Would he have to admit that scientific guesses like the so-called 'positive feedback' were only guesses not backed up by any scientific data?

Answer 1

Let's see.

"Defamation" is the general term used internationally, and is used in this article where it is not necessary to distinguish between "slander" and "libel". Libel and slander both require publication.[6] The fundamental distinction between libel and slander lies solely in the form in which the defamatory matter is published. If the offending material is published in some fleeting form, as by spoken words or sounds, sign language, gestures and the like, then this is slander. If it is published in more durable form, for example in written words, film, compact disc (CD), DVD, blogging and the like, then it is considered libel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation

So, libel is the correct form of accusation to make since we are talking about the film.

Al would use a defense that probably relied on many features of a defense in a libel case including:

Defenses to claims of defamation include:

A) Truth is an absolute defense in the United States as well as in the common law jurisdictions of Canada. In some other countries it is also necessary to show a benefit to the public good in having the information brought to light.

B) Statements made in a good faith - and reasonable belief that they were true are generally treated the same as true statements; however, the court may inquire into the reasonableness of the belief. The degree of care expected will vary with the nature of the defendant: an ordinary person might safely rely on a single newspaper report, while the newspaper would be expected to carefully check multiple sources.



C) Opinion - is a defense recognized in nearly every jurisdiction. If the allegedly defamatory assertion is an expression of opinion rather than a statement of fact, defamation claims usually cannot be brought because opinions are inherently not falsifiable. However, some jurisdictions decline to recognize any legal distinction between fact and opinion. The United States Supreme Court, in particular, has ruled that the First Amendment does not require recognition of an opinion privilege.

D) Fair comment on a matter of public interest,.

SO, you have to prove it was not the truth or he didn't believe the statements at the time or that he was not just expressing an opinion or that the matter was not in the public interest.

If Al doen't feel that there is NO conclusive data regarding temperatures in 5 years then it's not libel.  WORSE, if you are trying to prove libel based on teh movie, you would have to prove that he held that opinion when he was making and distributing the movie.

Polar bears-  if they were animated I bet he would say it was a cost issue and he knew there was data out there to support his polar bear claims.  Again you would need to prove he didn't believe there were troubles with polar bears at the time he made the movie.

Positive feedback- You would have to priove there was no data and he did not hold the opinion that there was positive feedback issues in global warming.  Given that positive feedback loops are a well recognized phenomena in many systems, you couldn't claim that positive feedback doesn't occur and you would not be able to prove that he did not believe in it at the time the movie was made.

ALL IN ALL

You may think the movie is garbage, but many don't so I don't believe you would be serving your beliefs well by trying to prove LIBEL.  The case does not rise to the level of proof needed to proceed and you would lose badly.  Try other avenues if you want.  How about making a movie to disprove Global Warming, with data etc.  You could even go with cute graphics and whatever to help get your point across.

And of couse ,kudos go to Jello for coming up with another innovative strategy in his quest to disprove Global Warming/Climate Change is occuring.

Answer 2

ABSOLUTELY!!!

Another thing is that he is HELPING OIL COMPANIES GET RICHER as well.  They RAISE their prices under the GUISE of detering its use knowing that we are tied to it thanks to auto companies, our government and BIG OIL....  YET LIBTARDS ARE STUPID ENOUGH TO THINK THAT OIL COMPANIES HATE GLOBAL WARMING....  THEY HAVE REALLY GONE OFF THE DEEP END NOW!!!!

Answer 3

Who exactly did Al Gore commit libel against?

I think Larry W has gone of the deep end. Since when did oil companies claim they were raising prices to deter its use? That's crazy. The usual excuse is supply and demand or lack of refining capacity because of enviro-wackos.

Answer 4

No.  It could expose you to a countersuit for "abuse of process'.

The data is very conclusive.  The fact that a movie used special effects is completely unimportant to global warming science.

A similar lawsuit in Great Britain lost, big time.  The judge found that a few minor flaws in Gore's movie did not change the basic facts.

He said it was PROVEN that global warming is real, mostly caused by us, a serious problem, and capable of being solved by us.

Case closed.

Answer 5

The suit wouldn't have a prayer, or more fittingly, a snowballs chance in a Texas summer.

Answer 6

Haha.

You'd be laughed out of court.