Weather Channel founder wants to sue Al Gore

**CtrlAltDe1337** · March 05, 2008, 11:29 PM

(sorry if its in the wrong place, I put it here since its dealing with science. Should it be in the mudpit?)

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?

http://www.citizensugar.com/1093812

Saw this on yahoo news. What do you think?

**TheKwas** · March 06, 2008, 12:38 AM

Meteorologist =! climatologist.

**Lunar4** · March 06, 2008, 07:41 AM

The Weather Channel has lost its way, according to John Coleman, who founded the channel in 1982.

Coleman told an audience at the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change on March 3 in New York that he is highly critical of global warming alarmism.

“The Weather Channel had great promise, and that’s all gone now because they’ve made every mistake in the book on what they’ve done and how they’ve done it and it’s very sad,” Coleman said. “It’s now for sale and there’s a new owner of The Weather Channel will be announced – several billion dollars having changed hands in the near future. Let’s hope the new owners can recapture the vision and stop reporting the traffic, telling us what to think and start giving us useful weather information.”

The Weather Channel has been an outlet for global warming alarmism. In December 2006, The Weather Channel’s Heidi Cullen argued on her blog that weathercasters who had doubts about human influence on global warming should be punished with decertification by the American Meteorological Society.

Coleman also told the audience his strategy for exposing what he called “the fraud of global warming.” He advocated suing those who sell carbon credits, which would force global warming alarmists to give a more honest account of the policies they propose.

“[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.”

Earlier at the conference Lord Christopher Monckton, a policy adviser to former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, told an audience that the science will eventually prevail and the “scare” of global warming will go away. He also said the courts were a good avenue to show the science.

http://www.businessandmedia.org/arti...303175301.aspx

**Juvenal** · March 06, 2008, 08:20 AM

Originally Posted by Lunar4

...He also said the courts were a good avenue to show the science.

When I read that bit I almost choked on my coffee.

If anyone says that to your face, I would advise you to check your wallet afterwards, and to be safe, count your fillings, your rings and make sure you still have your keys.

**Simetrical** · March 06, 2008, 10:04 AM

Meteorology is more or less totally distinct from climatology. It's like botany versus biochemistry: yes, technically climate is just weather on a larger scale, and some of the measurements you take will overlap, but the analysis you do and the things you focus on are too different for those from one field to have much to say about the other, AFAIK.

The idea of using the courts for this is ludicrous. First of all, the courts will reject the claim as bogus, since fraud requires you to mislead people into giving you money (or otherwise profiting you). You're allowed to mislead people (even deliberately) as long as you don't profit from it. Even if Gore made money off the film, he was profiting from people coming to see the documentary in the first place, not from whatever he told them when they got there.

Second of all, courts decide matters like this by means of expert testimony. What will happen, if it doesn't get thrown out to begin with, is the defense will just bring in expert witness after expert witness who testifies that like every climatologist in the world believes in global warming, which is basically true. And even if you try to nitpick the facts, at most you can claim there's a legitimate dispute, which isn't enough for the courts to side with anyone.

I don't, by the way, have much respect for climatology as a science, any more than I do for (for instance) most pharmaceutical research, epidemiology, or other "science" that seems to be based on statistical models more than actual observations. While anthropogenic global warming seems plausible, I see no reason to trust climatologists' relatively high certainty about it. I think it's commonly pursued as much as a religious and political cause as anything else, and its environmentalist advocates let themselves be blinded to the array of possible options for averting or reversing it. But this guy looks to be a clown.

**Ahiga** · March 06, 2008, 12:44 PM

I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you, I was too busy being lulled to sleep by the Weather Channel's soothing musak.

**Farnan** · March 06, 2008, 01:10 PM

Well the Scopes Monkey Trial did make Evolution acceptable in the US...

**danzig** · March 06, 2008, 01:30 PM

Whats funny is people are talking meteorologist vs climatologist of the guy but Al Gore is neither...

**Simetrical** · March 06, 2008, 02:30 PM

Originally Posted by The Man With No Name

Well the Scopes Monkey Trial did make Evolution acceptable in the US...

I think you have it backwards.

Originally Posted by danzig

Whats funny is people are talking meteorologist vs climatologist of the guy but Al Gore is neither...

Heh, true. But the guy's still a clown. People who call global warming wrong are one thing, calling it a fraud (implying deliberate deception) is at least edging toward the deep end.

**Farnan** · March 06, 2008, 04:23 PM

Originally Posted by Simetrical

I think you have it backwards.

Actually no, it was after the Scopes trial the laws against teaching Evolution were looked at...

**Kiljan Arslan** · March 06, 2008, 04:22 PM

What a stupid ****ing idiot.

**Thanatos** · March 06, 2008, 04:49 PM

Ha, Al Gore. Is he going to start talking about Manbearpig next?

**CtrlAltDe1337** · March 06, 2008, 07:37 PM

Originally Posted by Thanatos

Ha, Al Gore. Is he going to start talking about Manbearpig next?

But seriously, I think Gore blows this waaaay out of proportion. He makes it sound like the world is going to end, so you better cash in on the carbon credits as thats what everyone is going to! But guess who is gonna make a lot of the carbon money...it does seem like a big scam in a way. Not that some climate change isn't happening, but its nothing like Gore's story. Suing him seems a little extreme, though. I don't really understand what he is suing him for.

**Kiljan Arslan** · March 06, 2008, 05:17 PM

BTW the head of the weather channel looks like a certain loony congressmen from Texas...

**TheKwas** · March 06, 2008, 11:02 PM

I don't, by the way, have much respect for climatology as a science, any more than I do for (for instance) most pharmaceutical research, epidemiology, or other "science" that seems to be based on statistical models more than actual observations.

Why would this be the case? When properly used, the statistical models used in these fields are both useful and scientific (I can't say I know much about pharmaceutical research, but epidemiology uses many of the same multivariate models I have to use in Econometrics). Certainly, there are margins of error, but generally speaking the model itself will tell you it's own precision and 'tightness' (Total Sum of the Residual Squares). In the realm of epidemiology and climatology, I can understand a skepticism concerning how many hidden variables may exist, but that's a feature of the science being relatively young, and not a feature of the science being flawed.

**Simetrical** · March 07, 2008, 03:54 PM

Originally Posted by TheKwas

Why would this be the case? When properly used, the statistical models used in these fields are both useful and scientific (I can't say I know much about pharmaceutical research, but epidemiology uses many of the same multivariate models I have to use in Econometrics). Certainly, there are margins of error, but generally speaking the model itself will tell you it's own precision and 'tightness' (Total Sum of the Residual Squares). In the realm of epidemiology and climatology, I can understand a skepticism concerning how many hidden variables may exist, but that's a feature of the science being relatively young, and not a feature of the science being flawed.

Well, I guess my problem is not so much with statistics, as such. I have no objections to statistical mechanics! Nor is there a problem with models; models are used extensively in physics and all sorts of totally rigorous fields, to great effect. Hidden variables are not a problem either, by themselves (look at quantum mechanics).

I suppose my problem is more to do with the attempt to eliminate complicated confounding variables statistically rather than through controls. If you use proper controls, you can be sure you've really gotten rid of every conceivable bias. But if you can't control things, you have to identify possible sources of bias and remove them. This is not only prone to errors, but prone to manipulation as well (malicious or otherwise). Ultimately, to move from correlation to causation you need either controls or a really, really, really airtight case (smoking causing cancer is an example of the latter). If you miss some common cause, or slightly underplay it, it seems much too easy to get an effect that just doesn't exist.

I'm not saying any of these fields (and yes, I include everything related to macroeconomics in the list, since you mention it) is totally unreliable. It's a step above, say, history. But it's still definitely a step below laboratory science in terms of reliability. There's a big difference between measuring climate and then calculating that according to your model it must be due to humans, and actually being able to run one Earth with greenhouse gas emissions and one without and see how each fares. The first is what climatology, epidemiology, some pharmaceutical research, much of economics, etc. do. The second is what chemistry, physics, much of biology (e.g., genetics), much of psychology, etc. do. They should never, ever be put on the same pedestal, and I'm just not going to really believe anyone from camp one without a specific explanation on the particular issue that's individually convincing.