Gore To Be Sued For Fraud ?

[BartonX]

John Coleman, inventor of "The Weather Channel", said he would be suing Al Gore and all advocates of global warming for fraud, at a meeting in New York City today.

(It came across the screen as a ticker tape)

[BartonX]

Since there are so many that are too damned lazy to look it up for themselves and demand a link. The following came from "Pirates Cove"

John Coleman Advocates Suing Gore And Other Climahysterics
Heh heh

(Weather Channel founder John) 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 media stand to testify, I feel like that could become the vehicle to finally put some light on the fraud of global warming.”

It would pretty much expose that anthropogenic climate change, ie, that Man is mostly or solely responsible, is a myth designed to scare people and raise money. Why else would the majority of the Disciples of The Goracle fail to live the life they extoll for everyone else?

But there is more that could expose the Climahysterics and their faulty science

A summary of “Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate,” Singer’s latest report, was released at the conference. Singer discussed some of the study’s major findings in his address.

The report, published by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), is a rejoinder to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Singer said.

The IPCC, he said, has failed to produce any hard evidence suggesting that humans are largely responsible for the planet’s current warming cycle.

And, again, if the UN really believed its rhetoric, it would act in accordance, rather then having conferences in nice vacation spots all over the world.

Most recently, Dr. Joanne Simpson, an atmospheric scientist who previously served with the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, outlined her views in a blog cautioning against excessive reliance on climate models.

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization or receive any funding, I can speak quite frankly,” she wrote.

“For more than a decade now ‘global warming’ and its impacts has become the primary interface between our science and society. … There is no doubt that atmospheric greenhouse gases are rising rapidly and little doubt that some warming and bad ecological events are occurring,” Simpson added.

“However, the main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models,” she said. “We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system. We only need to watch the weather forecasts.”

Na, I bet she is in the pay of Big something or other. That is the easiest answer, ya know.

http://www.thepiratescove.us/?p=5292

[Wabash]

That would make my Year! Would he have to give back the stinkin Pulitzer?

[BartonX]

Not so noble anymore
Feature Editorial
Scott Snyder
Issue date: 3/10/08 Section: Opinions
PrintEmail Article Tools Page 1 of 2 next > John Coleman, the founder of The Weather Channel, recently stated that Al Gore and others selling carbon credits should be sued for fraud. However, many criticize Coleman, a meteorologist, for undermining environmentalist efforts to scare people into donating to their causes. His critics reject his scientifically-supported research as lies, and instead cling to a Nobel prize-hugging film producer/politician as their source of truth.

Joining liberals, environmentalists and others have denied blatant facts - in this case, meteorological facts - while upholding a belief in global warming. Heidi Cullen, one of The Weather Channel hosts, believes that meteorologist's licenses should be revoked if they question global warming.

However, what good are Coleman's claims without actual facts? The U.S. National Climatic Data Center reported the national average temperature in January 2008 was -.3 F colder than the national average temperature of the entire 20th century. Toronto got 70 centimeters of snow, the most in January since 1950. But those who watched Gore's movie are probably wondering how the arctic ice is doing since it should probably be half melted by now. According to the Canadian Ice Service, the ice is now 10-20 centimeters thicker in many places than it was last year.

Environmentalists have since discovered a fault in their computer models. They found that it is wind circulation that drives the water currents to the North, not melting ice. According to Princeton University Professor Joellen Russell, "We missed what was right in front of our eyes."

The Russian Academy of National Sciences fellow Oleg Sorokhtin said that man's effect on climate change is "a drop in the bucket" compared to other causes, such as the fact that the sun has entered an inactive phase. He suggests people "stock up on fur coats."

John Coleman and the National Academy of Science, prompted by Congress, have debunked the "hockey stick" graph Gore used in his "documentary" that shows drastic climate change in the 1990s and on. Among many issues, this graph does not include a prominent, widely accepted, documented warming trend known as the Medieval Warm Period (another instance of environmentalists denying facts). The UN now no longer uses this chart. Unfortunately, the media never mentioned this.
Continued...

[BartonX]

Not so noble anymore
Feature Editorial
Scott Snyder
Issue date: 3/10/08 Section: Opinions
PrintEmail Article Tools < prev Page 2 of 2 Gore argues that an increase in carbon emissions causes an increase in temperature. However, this does not account for warming trends in the pre-SUV age.

Coleman's argument is logical, unlike Gore's argument. Coleman states that the temperature of the Earth is influenced by solar activity. It is a known fact that carbon emissions increased due to industrialization and consumption by man, however temperature has fluctuated over the years. Coleman argues that the temperature on earth correlates with solar output. He graphed both of these values over the years along with hydrocarbon use to show that the temperature fluctuates with solar output, not carbon use.

Another tactic used by alarmists is to show pictures of polar bears alone on melting icebergs. However, these are not due to warming; they are due to storms and disturbances to their environment. Arctic ice melts in cycles, melting during the warm seasons and refreezing in the cold. We call these periods summer and winter, respectively. The Canadian Ice Service provides charting tools online to graph ice coverage of the arctic compared to the average coverage from 1970-2000. Similar trends are reflected in their charts.

The reason Coleman is pushing for litigation against Al Gore and people who sell carbon credits is because they profit off of scaring people into donating money. They use alarmist tactics to propagate fears the Earth will be uninhabitable for our grandchildren unless they donate. They used factually and scientifically flawed data to gain international recognition and awards to support their fraudulent cause.

People who donated money to alleviate man-made climate change deserve to have their money returned. The room just got a lot hotter for Al Gore, but cooler for the rest of us.

All facts are derived from John Coleman's "Comments on Global Warming."

http://media.www.chicagoflame.com/media/storage/paper519/news/2008/03/10/Opinions/Not-So.Noble.Anymore-3259881-page2.shtml

[BartonX]

That would make my Year! Would he have to give back the stinkin Pulitzer?

He like Mandela have made it stink. :) I would hope both would have to give it back. This John Coleman is a Democrat :rofl

[Wabash]

He like Mandela have made it stink. :) I would hope both would have to give it back. This John Coleman is a Democrat :rofl

Did you hear that Arafat had to check his at the Door of Hell?:wink

[Trueblue]

Follow up story:

John Coleman to Have His Ass Laughed Out of Court

[AYFR]

TB you should want this lawsuit to go foward.
If ruled in favor of Gore this would set a legal precedence for global warming.

[Trueblue]

TB you should want this lawsuit to go foward.
If ruled in favor of Gore this would set a legal precedence for global warming.

That has already happened.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17911853/

And I don't mind if this goes forward, I look forward to Coleman having his ass laughed out of court.

[AYFR]

Ok just was checking.
Personally I know what I believe and no court ruling will change that but that is just me.

[Trueblue]

In essence, the court handed the administration power it insisted it did not have and did not want. And the administration came under immediate pressure to use that power from an unlikely source as the nation’s biggest automakers joined the chorus of environmental groups and climate scientists calling for the EPA to get moving on greenhouse gases.

New tactics for auto industry

For the automakers, the ruling means a shift in tactics. With the Bush administration having lost the argument that it could not regulate carbon dioxide emissions, automakers now hope that the EPA will enact an industrywide standard before the states enact a patchwork of differing regulations or before the Democratic-controlled Congress can revise the Clean Air Act to include even stronger restrictions.

“The EPA will be part of this process,” said Dave McCurdy, chief executive of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, an industry trade group representing General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co., DaimlerChrysler AG, Toyota Motor Corp. and five others.

“There needs to be a national, federal, economy-wide approach to addressing greenhouse gases,” McCurdy said in a statement, which acknowledged that changes in environmental regulations were probably inevitable. He said the auto industry was eager to work with Congress and the EPA to make the changes uniform and “constructive.”

The Bush administration had argued all along that Congress never gave it the power to decide whether carbon dioxide was a pollutant as defined in the federal Clean Air Act, but in an opinion written by Justice John Paul Stevens, the court said it did have such authority.

More important, Stevens sided in unusually strong language with scientists who say that U.S. car emissions do contribute to greenhouse gases, leading to global warming. In doing so, he rebutted the contention of some energy industry officials and Republicans in the administration and Congress that there is no proof of global warming.

The auto industry is on board, too.

[AYFR]

Ok and??

[Trueblue]

Ok and??

And that means that even those you might expect to fight the idea of global warming are accepting the scientific reality.

[patriotsblade]

And that means that even those you might expect to fight the idea of global warming are accepting the scientific reality.

:yep

Energy Companies Come To Terms With Climate Change. (http://www.bluegrassreport.org/bluegrass_politics/2006/11/wingnuts_standi.html)

"We have to deal with greenhouse gases," John Hofmeister, president of Shell Oil Co., said in a recent speech at the National Press Club. "From Shell's point of view, the debate is over. When 98 percent of scientists agree, who is Shell to say, 'Let's debate the science'?"


Exxon Mobil Corp., the highest-profile corporate skeptic about global warming, said in September that it was considering ending its funding of a think tank that has sought to cast doubts on climate change.

[Ringo]

That has already happened.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17911853/

And I don't mind if this goes forward, I look forward to Coleman having his ass laughed out of court.

I would rather see YOUR Fat Fuck being tried for TREASON, the Yellow Belly prick, and his buddy Bill!!!:devil:devil:godzilla:godzilla

[AYFR]

I would rather see YOUR Fat Fuck being tried for TREASON, the Yellow Belly prick, and his buddy Bill!!!:devil:devil:godzilla:godzilla
:nono
:tos

[Yellowdogtexan]

John Coleman, inventor of "The Weather Channel", said he would be suing Al Gore and all advocates of global warming for fraud, at a meeting in New York City today.

(It came across the screen as a ticker tape)Only a moron would file such a suit. It will be kicked out of court so fast your head will swim. This sounds like another ignorant layperson playing lawyer and that layperson should be sanctioned for filing such a stupid lawsuit.

[Yellowdogtexan]

This one sentence stands out in doc's silly article. “If the lawyers will take the case There will be no lawsuit because no lawyer is stupid enough to take this type of case on a contigency fee and would face sanctions for filing a stupid case.

This is a cry for attention by a silly lay person who is ignorant about the law. The Weather Channel has rejected his claims and this bozo could not even get a job as a weatherman now days due to his lack of accredititation and training. Again. it is sad when stupid laypersons try to play lawyer.

[Ringo]

This one sentence stands out in doc's silly article. There will be no lawsuit because no lawyer is stupid enough to take this type of case on a contigency fee and would face sanctions for filing a stupid case.

This is a cry for attention by a silly lay person who is ignorant about the law. The Weather Channel has rejected his claims and this bozo could not even get a job as a weatherman now days due to his lack of accredititation and training. Again. it is sad when stupid laypersons try to play lawyer.

Why do you continue to do it then? Hell Doggie even first year law students can spell CONTINGENCY, as a lot of FEES are generated this way!! The ONES that can't spell it are the COFFEE boys or they sit second chair in a Small Claims Court!!:mw:mw:LL:LL

[Trueblue]

YDT isn't saying that there are no contingency cases, he said that to that this case on contingency is STUPID.

[Ringo]

:nono
:tos

Oh Gore can't be insulted these days? Has he been raised to King of the Geeks and Enviro brain washed Wackos???:mw:mw

This wasn't towards TB other than say Bore Man is her Fat Fuck hero, so where is the violation??:sparks2:sparks2

[Trueblue]

Maybe there's a policy against being ridiculous.

[Capitalist]

That has already happened.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17911853/

And I don't mind if this goes forward, I look forward to Coleman having his ass laughed out of court.

The ruling is not saying global warming is fact. it is saying that the EPA has the authority to regulate greenhouse gases and that they must give other reasons for not enforcing whatever moronic regulations have been passed down to them.

I don't even need to read the decision, I am sure that the court divided along the usual lines with Kennedy coming down on the wrong side once again.

Of course Scalia Thomas Alito and Roberts all actually follow the fucking constitution.

The way I read the constitution (original intent) there is no authority for the government to do this.

But this is not a ruling saying global warming exists or is caused by human activity.

There is no scientific proof of that.

PS - Science is not concensus, it is or it is not.

It has been proofed beyond the current ability to proof it or it is not.

[Yellowdogtexan]

I was pointing out that the moron in question did not have a lawyer lined up and that he would have a hard time getting a lawyer to take such a moronic case. Whoever takes this case would be subject to sanctions for bringing a frivilous lawsuit and only ideologues or an idiot would take such a case. This idiot even admits that he is looking for a lawyer to bring a case which is a clear sign of how weak the case is.

This idiot is crying for attention. He is not qualified to even be on the weather channel now because the group that certifies metrologists requires you to know something about global warming.

I love it when ignorant laypeople like this weatherman and others try to practice law. In this case, this silly layperson threathened a lawsuit that has no merit. That does not stop other idiots from talking about this silly and meritless claim.

[Trueblue]

The ruling is not saying global warming is fact. it is saying that the EPA has the authority to regulate greenhouse gases and that they must give other reasons for not enforcing whatever moronic regulations have been passed down to them.

I understand that, and I understand the implications of the ruling, too.

I don't even need to read the decision, I am sure that the court divided along the usual lines with Kennedy coming down on the wrong side once again.


Sour grapes.

Of course Scalia Thomas Alito and Roberts all actually follow the fucking constitution.

The way I read the constitution (original intent) there is no authority for the government to do this.

But this is not a ruling saying global warming exists or is caused by human activity.

There is no scientific proof of that.

Well that's simply false. That global warming has been caused by human activity is known to a virtual certainty. Only stubbornness would lead someone to ignore the level of proof that we have of global warming.

PS - Science is not concensus, it is or it is not.

It has been proofed beyond the current ability to proof it or it is not.

It has been proven to a virtual certainty. The consensus isn't like a compromise between two people, the consensus is that the evidence has been reviewed by many experts who have come to the same conclusion, based on years of data and the use of computer models.

[Capitalist]

Follow up story:

John Coleman to Have His Ass Laughed Out of Court

You might want to actually understand what he said instead of taking another posters word for it. I saw the interview in question and he never once said he would sue.

Here is what he said, (unlike you on the left I know how to read or listen and paraphrase)

He was saying that since Al Gore is in a ownership positions in at least 1 company that sells 'carbon credits' that when Global warming is exposed as the Hoax that he believes it is, that Gore could be susceptable to being sued. The reason being that at the same time he is whipping up what amounts to Hysteria over 'global warming' he is profiting from that hysteria.

I think he has a point and a well reasoned one at that.

At no time did he say he was suing anyone.

[Capitalist]

The auto industry is on board, too.

They are only 'on board' because the devil you know is better than the devil you don't '.

They would rather a standard size dick fucking them than 50 different sizes and shapes.

They are playing the game the only way they can and survive, stop trying to make it sound like they are all suddenly joining greenpeace and singing kumbaya...

[Capitalist]

And that means that even those you might expect to fight the idea of global warming are accepting the scientific reality.

That's crap and you know it.

[Capitalist]

:yep

Energy Companies Come To Terms With Climate Change. (http://www.bluegrassreport.org/bluegrass_politics/2006/11/wingnuts_standi.html)

What it is , is giving in to the mob and PR, nothing more.

[Trueblue]

You might want to actually understand what he said instead of taking another posters word for it. I saw the interview in question and he never once said he would sue.

Here is what he said, (unlike you on the left I know how to read or listen and paraphrase)

He was saying that since Al Gore is in a ownership positions in at least 1 company that sells 'carbon credits' that when Global warming is exposed as the Hoax that he believes it is, that Gore could be susceptable to being sued. The reason being that at the same time he is whipping up what amounts to Hysteria over 'global warming' he is profiting from that hysteria.

I think he has a point and a well reasoned one at that.

At no time did he say he was suing anyone.

He will be laughed out of court, and his reasoning is laughable. As global warming is known to be a significant problem, as the scientific community has accepted that human activity is the major cause of global warming, as our own military is making plans to deal with unrest related to global warming, as we are seeing global warming happening right now, Coleman's reasoning is anything but well done.

[Trueblue]

That's crap and you know it.

What it is , is giving in to the mob and PR, nothing more.

No, Cap, the crap is coming from you. You have taken a political position against global warming, but this is scientific fact, not a political game.

[Capitalist]

I was pointing out that the moron in question did not have a lawyer lined up and that he would have a hard time getting a lawyer to take such a moronic case. Whoever takes this case would be subject to sanctions for bringing a frivilous lawsuit and only ideologues or an idiot would take such a case. This idiot even admits that he is looking for a lawyer to bring a case which is a clear sign of how weak the case is.

This idiot is crying for attention. He is not qualified to even be on the weather channel now because the group that certifies metrologists requires you to know something about global warming.

I love it when ignorant laypeople like this weatherman and others try to practice law. In this case, this silly layperson threathened a lawsuit that has no merit. That does not stop other idiots from talking about this silly and meritless claim.


Why don't you taske this laypersons advise and go fuck yourself ahole.

[Capitalist]

I understand that, and I understand the implications of the ruling, too.



Sour grapes.



Well that's simply false. That global warming has been caused by human activity is known to a virtual certainty. Only stubbornness would lead someone to ignore the level of proof that we have of global warming.



It has been proven to a virtual certainty. The consensus isn't like a compromise between two people, the consensus is that the evidence has been reviewed by many experts who have come to the same conclusion, based on years of data and the use of computer models.

So the many scientists who say it is not true are what, fools, dupes? paid off?

You will note that virtually all the pro GW folks are paid by grants to 'study it' and that if IT were not true the grants would dry up?

Do you just ignore the scientists who say other than what you choose to believe?

[Yellowdogtexan]

The ruling is not saying global warming is fact. You need to learn how to read. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17911853/
The Bush administration had argued all along that Congress never gave it the power to decide whether carbon dioxide was a pollutant as defined in the federal Clean Air Act, but in an opinion written by Justice John Paul Stevens, the court said it did have such authority.

More important, Stevens sided in unusually strong language with scientists who say that U.S. car emissions do contribute to greenhouse gases, leading to global warming. In doing so, he rebutted the contention of some energy industry officials and Republicans in the administration and Congress that there is no proof of global warming.The court had to find that CO2 was a pollutant for the EPA to have authority to regulate CO2. The SCOTUS found that CO2 contributed or causes global warming and therefore met the statutory definition of a pollutant.

[Trueblue]

So the many scientists who say it is not true are what, fools, dupes? paid off?

There are not that many, actually, and some of them are fools, dupes, or paid off.

You will note that virtually all the pro GW folks are paid by grants to 'study it' and that if IT were not true the grants would dry up?

This is such a funny accusation. As if people would be motivated to lie by grant money, but the money given by oil companies is not a motivation at all.

Do you just ignore the scientists who say other than what you choose to believe?

Picking and choosing what to believe is your game, not mine.

The data has been looked at by scientists all over the world.

Do you realize what a huge plum it would be for a scientist to discover an error in somebody's data analysis? It would totally MAKE a career to show that the global warming data is wrong. And yet that isn't happening.

You and others consistently confuse opinion columns with scientific research, among other errors.

[Capitalist]

He will be laughed out of court, and his reasoning is laughable. As global warming is known to be a significant problem, as the scientific community has accepted that human activity is the major cause of global warming, as our own military is making plans to deal with unrest related to global warming, as we are seeing global warming happening right now, Coleman's reasoning is anything but well done.

So if in the next few years it is shown (as I believe it will be), that global warming is not man caused but a natural solar cycle and that it was obvious before Al Gore started his hystrionics over it, that the fact that he has ownership in companies that make a profit from that hysteria, that there is no case?

You can keep repeated that it is proven when thousands of scientists with no reason to say otherwise disagree, but saying a lie a million times does not make it true, just an off repeated lie.

[Capitalist]

No, Cap, the crap is coming from you. You have taken a political position against global warming, but this is scientific fact, not a political game.

I have taken a political position, your almost funny if it were not for the large numbers of ignorant people who also believe this crap.

It is the left who has politicized this just as they have global trade, animal rights , aides and most other leftist positions.

it is not proven to my satisfaction and that is the only criteria I need to call it what it is, a new front in the war on capitalism that you and other socialist leaning leftists use.

[Capitalist]

You need to learn how to read. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17911853/
The court had to find that CO2 was a pollutant for the EPA to have authority to regulate CO2. The SCOTUS found that CO2 contributed or causes global warming and therefore met the statutory definition of a pollutant.

So I guess we can say that humans are a source of CO2, you do know that we convert oxygen to CO2 when we breath? 6 billion CO2 producing machines.

CO2 is not a pollutant, it is a naturally occuring substance that all plant life on earth require to live, the oxygen they expell after using CO2 allows us to live on this planet.

[Trueblue]

So if in the next few years it is shown (as I believe it will be), that global warming is not man caused but a natural solar cycle and that it was obvious before Al Gore started his hystrionics over it, that the fact that he has ownership in companies that make a profit from that hysteria, that there is no case?

You can keep repeated that it is proven when thousands of scientists with no reason to say otherwise disagree, but saying a lie a million times does not make it true, just an off repeated lie.

You are going to be bitterly disappointed, Cap, because that isn't going to happen. You are not better at science than the people who are studying this.

You are repeating a lie, not I, and you are determined to keep pretending that there are huge numbers of scientists who are deniers when there simply are not.

Those you have heard about are often not even scientists. One list of "scientists" that has been spread around includes dentists among their scientists. :lol

Those who get a lot of air time denying have generally had their information debunked.

[Trueblue]

I have taken a political position, your almost funny if it were not for the large numbers of ignorant people who also believe this crap.

It is the left who has politicized this just as they have global trade, animal rights , aides and most other leftist positions.

it is not proven to my satisfaction and that is the only criteria I need to call it what it is, a new front in the war on capitalism that you and other socialist leaning leftists use.

No, the right has politicized this, just like they politicize everything else. You are a bunch of Mayberry Machiavelli's, for sure.

Nobody, but nobody, cares about whether or not you are convinced. The scientific reality is against you, and thankfully, your point of view is becoming increasingly irrelevant.

[Trueblue]

So I guess we can say that humans are a source of CO2, you do know that we convert oxygen to CO2 when we breath? 6 billion CO2 producing machines.

CO2 is not a pollutant, it is a naturally occuring substance that all plant life on earth require to live, the oxygen they expell after using CO2 allows us to live on this planet.

So there is no such thing as too much of anything, right? :lol

[Trueblue]

The cold truth about climate change

Deniers continue to insist there's no consensus on global warming. Well, there's not. There's well-tested science and real-world observations.

AP Photo/John McConnico

An iceberg melts in Kulusuk, Greenland, near the Arctic Circle.

Feb. 27, 2008 | The more I write about global warming, the more I realize I share some things in common with the doubters and deniers who populate the blogosphere and the conservative movement. Like them, I am dubious about the process used by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to write its reports. Like them, I am skeptical of the so-called consensus on climate science as reflected in the IPCC reports. Like them, I disagree with people who say "the science is settled." But that's where the agreement ends.

The science isn't settled -- it's unsettling, and getting more so every year as the scientific community learns more about the catastrophic consequences of uncontrolled greenhouse gas emissions.

The big difference I have with the doubters is they believe the IPCC reports seriously overstate the impact of human emissions on the climate, whereas the actual observed climate data clearly show the reports dramatically understate the impact.

But I do think the scientific community, the progressive community, environmentalists and media are making a serious mistake by using the word "consensus" to describe the shared understanding scientists have about the ever-worsening impacts that human-caused greenhouse gas emissions are having on this planet. When scientists and others say there is a consensus, many if not most people probably hear "consensus of opinion," which can -- and often is -- dismissed out of hand. I've met lots of people like CNBC anchor Joe Kernen, who simply can't believe that "as old as the planet is" that "puny, gnawing little humans" could possibly change the climate in "70 years."

Well, Joe, it is more like 250 years, but yes, most of the damage to date was done in the last 70 years, and yes, as counterintuitive as it may seem, puny little humans are doing it, and it's going to get much, much worse unless we act soon. Consensus of opinion is irrelevant to science because reality is often counterintuitive -- just try studying quantum mechanics.

Fortunately Kernen wasn't around when scientists were warning that puny little humans were destroying the Earth's protective ozone layer. Otherwise we might never have banned chlorofluorocarbons in time.

Consensus of opinion is also dismissed as groupthink. In a December article ignorantly titled "The Science of Gore's Nobel: What If Everyone Believes in Global Warmism Only Because Everyone Believes in Global Warmism?" Holman W. Jenkins Jr. of the Wall Street Journal editorial board wrote:

What if the heads being counted to certify an alleged "consensus" arrived at their positions by counting heads?

It may seem strange that scientists would participate in such a phenomenon. It shouldn't. Scientists are human; they do not wait for proof. Many devote their professional lives to seeking evidence for hypotheses, especially well-funded hypotheses, they've chosen to believe.

Less surprising is the readiness of many prominent journalists to embrace the role of enforcer of an orthodoxy simply because it is the orthodoxy. For them, a consensus apparently suffices as proof of itself.

How sad that the WSJ and CNBC have so little conception of what science really is, especially since scientific advances drive so much of the economy. If that's what Jenkins thinks science is, one would assume he is equally skeptical of flossing, antibiotics and even boarding an airplane.

(Note to WSJ: One reason science works is that a lot of scientists devote their whole lives to overturning whatever is the current hypothesis -- if it can be overturned. That's how you become famous and remembered by history, like Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Darwin and Einstein.)

In fact, science doesn't work by consensus of opinion. Science is in many respects the exact opposite of decision by consensus. General opinion at one point might have been that the sun goes around the Earth, or that time was an absolute quantity, but scientific theory supported by observations overturned that flawed worldview.

One of the most serious results of the overuse of the term "consensus" in the public discussion of global warming is that it creates a simple strategy for doubters to confuse the public, the press and politicians: Simply come up with as long a list as you can of scientists who dispute the theory. After all, such disagreement is prima facie proof that no consensus of opinion exists.

So we end up with the absurd but pointless spectacle of the leading denier in the U.S. Senate, James Inhofe, R-Okla., who recently put out a list of more than 400 names of supposedly "prominent scientists" who supposedly "recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called 'consensus' on man-made global warming."

As it turned out, the list is both padded and laughable, containing the opinions of TV weathermen, economists, a bunch of non-prominent scientists who aren't climate experts, and, perhaps surprisingly, even a number of people who actually believe in the consensus.

But in any case, nothing could be more irrelevant to climate science than the opinion of people on the list such as Weather Channel founder John Coleman or famed inventor Ray Kurzweil (who actually does "think global warming is real"). Or, for that matter, my opinion -- even though I researched a Ph.D. thesis at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography on physical oceanography in the Greenland Sea.

What matters is scientific findings -- data, not opinions. The IPCC relies on the peer-reviewed scientific literature for its conclusions, which must meet the rigorous requirements of the scientific method and which are inevitably scrutinized by others seeking to disprove that work. That is why I cite and link to as much research as is possible, hundreds of studies in the case of this article. Opinions are irrelevant.

A good example of how scientific evidence drives our understanding concerns how we know that humans are the dominant cause of global warming. This is, of course, the deniers' favorite topic. Since it is increasingly obvious that the climate is changing and the planet is warming, the remaining deniers have coalesced to defend their Alamo -- that human emissions aren't the cause of recent climate change and therefore that reducing those emissions is pointless.

Last year, longtime Nation columnist Alexander Cockburn wrote, "There is still zero empirical evidence that anthropogenic production of CO2 is making any measurable contribution to the world's present warming trend. The greenhouse fearmongers rely entirely on unverified, crudely oversimplified computer models to finger mankind's sinful contribution."

In fact, the evidence is amazingly strong. Moreover, if the relatively complex climate models are oversimplified in any respect, it is by omitting amplifying feedbacks and other factors that suggest human-caused climate change will be worse than is widely realized.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/02/27/global_warming_deniers/

MORE AT THE LINK

[Capitalist]

So there is no such thing as too much of anything, right? :lol

Never said that, did I?

I am saying there is no proof that the small amount of Global warming the earht has experienced in the last 100 years is the direct result of human activity.

The fact that some scientists , who make a living from it, say that humans are the cause that that the earth may be destroyed because of it, think it is true does not make it so.

The computer models used to tell the temp and weather this Monday are at best 50% accurate. To say that they can create a computer model that is accurate 100 years in the future and so much so that we should dratically change our life styles and way of life, is laughable at best.

Here are a few links, I doubt you will bother to read them since they tell a story you don''t like:

http://opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17568

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/debate/singer.html


This one from 1992 early on in hte hysterical debate on this issue:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb

There is so much more, you can say you believe the scientists who claim that GW caused by human activity is true, you have that right, you do not have the right to claim it as fact and then to say that drastic changes that effect us all must be implimented.

I say your wrong, you say I am wrong. You say that scientists have decided it is fact, I show you scientists who are competent and recognized experts say it is not.

[Trueblue]

Never said that, did I?

Actually, yes, that was clearly your implication.

I am saying there is no proof that the small amount of Global warming the earht has experienced in the last 100 years is the direct result of human activity.

And you are wrong about that. There is proof. It is a virtual certainty.

The fact that some scientists , who make a living from it, say that humans are the cause that that the earth may be destroyed because of it, think it is true does not make it so.

No, what makes it so are the facts and data.

You say things about your line of work. Do you routinely lie?

The computer models used to tell the temp and weather this Monday are at best 50% accurate. To say that they can create a computer model that is accurate 100 years in the future and so much so that we should dratically change our life styles and way of life, is laughable at best.

You fail to understand that climate and weather are two different things. A lot of deniers make the same mistake.

You think that because I cannot tell you the weather for this upcoming 4th of July, I cannot tell you that July will be hotter than January, right? :lol

Here are a few links, I doubt you will bother to read them since they tell a story you don''t like:

http://opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17568

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/debate/singer.html


This one from 1992 early on in hte hysterical debate on this issue:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb

There is so much more, you can say you believe the scientists who claim that GW caused by human activity is true, you have that right, you do not have the right to claim it as fact and then to say that drastic changes that effect us all must be implimented.

I say your wrong, you say I am wrong. You say that scientists have decided it is fact, I show you scientists who are competent and recognized experts say it is not.



You can find all kinds of crap on the internet, Cap. I'm giving you fact and data, you are returning with nonsense.

The fact that you are motivated by political concerns to deny reality doesn't give you the right to allow this problem to become larger.

All three Prez contenders are interested in slowing global warming. Many corporations are admitting that this is for real, and the court decision we discussed is on the side of science and not garbage like you are citing.

Thankfully, this is a discussion you have lost. Thankfully for both of us.

[Trueblue]

You have the right to call fact opinion, but that doesn't change facts into opinions, Cap. This is known to a virtual certainty.

Global warming theory is based on facts, observations, and data. You have the right to reject facts, observations, and data, but you don't have the right to subject the rest of humanity to your stubbornness.

Now go ahead, start cussing me. :roll

[Capitalist]

Actually, yes, that was clearly your implication.



And you are wrong about that. There is proof. It is a virtual certainty.



No, what makes it so are the facts and data.

You say things about your line of work. Do you routinely lie?



You fail to understand that climate and weather are two different things. A lot of deniers make the same mistake.

You think that because I cannot tell you the weather for this upcoming 4th of July, I cannot tell you that July will be hotter than January, right? :lol



You can find all kinds of crap on the internet, Cap. I'm giving you fact and data, you are returning with nonsense.

The fact that you are motivated by political concerns to deny reality doesn't give you the right to allow this problem to become larger.

All three Prez contenders are interested in slowing global warming. Many corporations are admitting that this is for real, and the court decision we discussed is on the side of science and not garbage like you are citing.

Thankfully, this is a discussion you have lost. Thankfully for both of us.

So as I figured you did not bother to read any of it, just decided to call it crap.

Well the difference is I read the stuff from people who claim the it is true and I also read the stuff from people who say it is not.

Frm that I conclude that it is not decided, it is not 'virtually' certain.

The words virtrually and proven are not the same.

I find it interesting that the scientists I quote are 'crap' from theinternet, yet your scientists are experts who know. The fact that they actually make a living providing this proof is not a factor. But if a politician agrees with the people who fund him he is in their pocket?

Why is it that all you leftist think if the government funds something it is all true and goodness and light and beyond reproach, but if something is privately funded then it must be a lie?

As to in my line of work, lying does not profit me, it does for the GW scientists.

TEll you what, I would like to read a study that claims GW as settled science not funded by a government entity or an entity with a dog in the hunt.

[Capitalist]

You have the right to call fact opinion, but that doesn't change facts into opinions, Cap. This is known to a virtual certainty.

Global warming theory is based on facts, observations, and data. You have the right to reject facts, observations, and data, but you don't have the right to subject the rest of humanity to your stubbornness.

Now go ahead, start cussing me. :roll

Not going to cuss you, your wrong, you can keep chanting virtual certainty all you wish, it does not make it true.

I could take your words and turn them right back on you.



You have the right to call fact opinion, but that doesn't change facts into opinions, TB. This is known to a virtual certainty.

Solar caused Global warming theory is based on facts, observations, and data. You have the right to reject facts, observations, and data, but you don't have the right to subject the rest of humanity to your stubbornness.

[Yellowdogtexan]

So if in the next few years it is shown (as I believe it will be), that global warming is not man caused but a natural solar cycle ....The trouble with silly theory is that we have been monitoring solor radiation for some time and it has not increase over the relevant time period while temperatures have increased. If solar radiation is going down and the temperature is going up, then even an idiot should be able to understand that global warming is real. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6290228.stmA new scientific study concludes that changes in the Sun's output cannot be causing modern-day climate change.
It shows that for the last 20 years, the Sun's output has declined, yet temperatures on Earth have risen.

It also shows that modern temperatures are not determined by the Sun's effect on cosmic rays, as has been claimed.

Writing in the Royal Society's journal Proceedings A, the researchers say cosmic rays may have affected climate in the past, but not the present.

"This should settle the debate," said Mike Lockwood from the UK's Rutherford-Appleton Laboratory, who carried out the new analysis together with Claus Froehlich from the World Radiation Center in Switzerland.

Dr Lockwood initiated the study partially in response to the TV documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle, broadcast on Britain's Channel Four earlier this year, which featured the cosmic ray hypothesis.

"All the graphs they showed stopped in about 1980, and I knew why, because things diverged after that," he told the BBC News website.

"You can't just ignore bits of data that you don't like," he said. Cause and effect is a basic concept. If the supposed cause goes down, then it is hard to claim that it is causing the effect that has gone up.

[BartonX]

Global Warming, Evolution, and Elijah Muhammed didn't found Obama's church are all lies! Politicized Religions founded on decadent premises.

The reference by the Janitor at a paralegal sweatshop stating the SCOTUS decided co-2 being harmful or not harmful is also bullshit they do not have that authority nor are they hired by us in that capacity. Their function is to make sure no laws oppose the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution and that is all they are permited legally to do.

[Trueblue]

So as I figured you did not bother to read any of it, just decided to call it crap.

You are right, I have read that kind of crap many times before.

Well the difference is I read the stuff from people who claim the it is true and I also read the stuff from people who say it is not.

Frm that I conclude that it is not decided, it is not 'virtually' certain.

The words virtrually and proven are not the same.

Virtual certainty is a scientific term.

I find it interesting that the scientists I quote are 'crap' from theinternet, yet your scientists are experts who know. The fact that they actually make a living providing this proof is not a factor. But if a politician agrees with the people who fund him he is in their pocket?

I find it interesting that you quote crap, too.

Why is it that all you leftist think if the government funds something it is all true and goodness and light and beyond reproach, but if something is privately funded then it must be a lie?

I don't think that, though.

As to in my line of work, lying does not profit me, it does for the GW scientists.

Lying doesn't profit them, either.

TEll you what, I would like to read a study that claims GW as settled science not funded by a government entity or an entity with a dog in the hunt.

Most pure research is government funded, isn't it?

You still don't grasp that if these guys are lying, it's the end of their careers. Their data has been examined, and it is sound.

Not going to cuss you, your wrong, you can keep chanting virtual certainty all you wish, it does not make it true.

I appreciate that you aren't going to cuss me. Virtual certainty is a scientific term. I use it in the hopes that it might sink in that this has gone beyond some vague idea that people are kicking around.

I could take your words and turn them right back on you.



You have the right to call fact opinion, but that doesn't change facts into opinions, TB. This is known to a virtual certainty.

You can, but it doesn't mean anything.

Solar caused Global warming theory is based on facts, observations, and data. You have the right to reject facts, observations, and data, but you don't have the right to subject the rest of humanity to your stubbornness.

The thing is, what you're saying is just not true. The idea that this is caused naturally has been disproven. But I don't think that matters to you.

[BartonX]

The concept that Global Warming, as presented by Al Gore and all of the other left wing morons is BULLSHIT!!! It is not science and neither is it a fact of life, what it is is a lie that is being tauted as science which it has never been.

[Trueblue]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6290228.stm

I've read this article before, I wish it had gotten more attention. Unfortunately, the fringe deniers have gotten as much coverage as the actual science on this issue.

The deniers seem to think that this massive amount of data could be altered and that no one would notice it. That is not how science works.

[Trueblue]

The concept that Global Warming, as presented by Al Gore and all of the other left wing morons is BULLSHIT!!! It is not science and neither is it a fact of life, what it is is a lie that is being tauted as science which it has never been.

You're just wrong. :hug

[BartonX]

You're just wrong. :hug

No I'm not, no I'm not, no I'm not :kiss

[Trueblue]

No I'm not, no I'm not, no I'm not :kiss

:D :tb

[BartonX]

:D :tb

:rofl

[Trueblue]

:rofl

That's my signature emoticon here, you know. :tb Isn't it perfect for me?

[Trueblue]

:snicker

[AYFR]

Oh Gore can't be insulted these days? Has he been raised to King of the Geeks and Enviro brain washed Wackos???:mw:mw

This wasn't towards TB other than say Bore Man is her Fat Fuck hero, so where is the violation??:sparks2:sparks2
Sorry Ringo I thought you were talking about TB
No violation

[Yellowdogtexan]

The reference by the Janitor at a paralegal sweatshop stating the SCOTUS decided co-2 being harmful or not harmful is also bullshit they do not have that authority nor are they hired by us in that capacity. Luckily the opinion of ignorant layperson like doc do not matter. Doc, why don't you file you stupid and silly views as an amicus rant (your filing would be far too stupid to be called a brief) and give the legal community the chance to laugh at your silliness and ignorance.

[Capitalist]

You are going to be bitterly disappointed, Cap, because that isn't going to happen. You are not better at science than the people who are studying this.

You are repeating a lie, not I, and you are determined to keep pretending that there are huge numbers of scientists who are deniers when there simply are not.

Those you have heard about are often not even scientists. One list of "scientists" that has been spread around includes dentists among their scientists. :lol

Those who get a lot of air time denying have generally had their information debunked.


To intelligent and open minded people a lie repeated often enough just shows the ignoraance of the liar.

It is not settled, it is not known, you are the fool not I.

[Capitalist]

No, the right has politicized this, just like they politicize everything else. You are a bunch of Mayberry Machiavelli's, for sure.

Nobody, but nobody, cares about whether or not you are convinced. The scientific reality is against you, and thankfully, your point of view is becoming increasingly irrelevant.

Dream on, your socialist utopia will never happen, I will fight it, with violence if need be.

And you may not know this but I have been well trained for the task if ever called upon.

[Capitalist]

The trouble with silly theory is that we have been monitoring solor radiation for some time and it has not increase over the relevant time period while temperatures have increased. If solar radiation is going down and the temperature is going up, then even an idiot should be able to understand that global warming is real. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6290228.stmCause and effect is a basic concept. If the supposed cause goes down, then it is hard to claim that it is causing the effect that has gone up.

I don't debate with old fucking ambulance chasing moronic asswipes like you.

Since I can't put you on ignore, because for some fucking reason some moron here decided you should be a mode, I will simply reply on occassion with invective and name calling. So don't bother responding to my posts numbnutz and pray to god we never meet in the flesh.

[Capitalist]

You are right, I have read that kind of crap many times before.



Virtual certainty is a scientific term.



I find it interesting that you quote crap, too.



I don't think that, though.



Lying doesn't profit them, either.



Most pure research is government funded, isn't it?

You still don't grasp that if these guys are lying, it's the end of their careers. Their data has been examined, and it is sound.



I appreciate that you aren't going to cuss me. Virtual certainty is a scientific term. I use it in the hopes that it might sink in that this has gone beyond some vague idea that people are kicking around.



You can, but it doesn't mean anything.



The thing is, what you're saying is just not true. The idea that this is caused naturally has been disproven. But I don't think that matters to you.


I am done with you, you are too brainwashed to even consider an alternative to your leftist anti-capitalist orthodoxy.

Do you know that even if we spend the trillions it would cost to do what Kyoto calls for it will barely make a dent in what your (in the pocket) scientists say may happen.

Virtual certainty is what they say when they don't have absolute proof.

Here is the definition of 'virtual, you may be right...

vir·tu·al (vûrch-l)
adj.
1. Existing or resulting in essence or effect though not in actual fact, form, or name: the virtual extinction of the buffalo.
2. Existing in the mind, especially as a product of the imagination. Used in literary criticism of a text.
3. Computer Science Created, simulated, or carried on by means of a computer or computer network: virtual

[Capitalist]

Luckily the opinion of ignorant layperson like doc do not matter. Doc, why don't you file you stupid and silly views as an amicus rant (your filing would be far too stupid to be called a brief) and give the legal community the chance to laugh at your silliness and ignorance.

Stick it up your ass moron.

[Ringo]

You are going to be bitterly disappointed, Cap, because that isn't going to happen. You are not better at science than the people who are studying this.

You are repeating a lie, not I, and you are determined to keep pretending that there are huge numbers of scientists who are deniers when there simply are not.

Those you have heard about are often not even scientists. One list of "scientists" that has been spread around includes dentists among their scientists. :lol

Those who get a lot of air time denying have generally had their information debunked.

Why LAUGH idiot YOUR side includes NEA school teachers, bottom feeding LAWYERS, and assorted MORONS, led by GORE, who is a TRAITOR to his Country!!:mw:mw:mw:charge:godzilla:godzilla

[Ringo]

Stick it up your ass moron.

Careful man this guy wears PINK BRIEFS, he is almost as tough as the infamous Punky Corpus, Habeus's brother!!!:deadshot:semmy:LL:LL

[Trueblue]

To intelligent and open minded people a lie repeated often enough just shows the ignoraance of the liar.

It is not settled, it is not known, you are the fool not I.

It is a virtual certainty, you are ignoring scientific reality.

Dream on, your socialist utopia will never happen, I will fight it, with violence if need be.

And you may not know this but I have been well trained for the task if ever called upon.

You are so scary. :lmao

I am done with you, you are too brainwashed to even consider an alternative to your leftist anti-capitalist orthodoxy.

Do you know that even if we spend the trillions it would cost to do what Kyoto calls for it will barely make a dent in what your (in the pocket) scientists say may happen.

Virtual certainty is what they say when they don't have absolute proof.

Here is the definition of 'virtual, you may be right...

Virtual certainty is what they say when to argue the point is to be ridiculous. You cannot parse out the individual words, you have to look at it as a scientific term.

It is comparable to the concept of reasonable doubt.

For example, it is possible that Ted Bundy's victims were murdered by space aliens, or by as a part of a government conspiracy, but neither of those doubts are reasonable. They are unreasonable doubts.

Your doubts are unreasonable.

You probably read the link that debunked your pet solar theory, and realized that all you had left was to call names and make ludicrous threats about your propensity to violence. But how does violence make the science wrong and you right?

[Yellowdogtexan]

I don't debate with old fucking ambulance chasing moronic asswipes like you.I knew that the concept of cause and effect was much too advance of a concept for a simple person like you to deal with. Again, the concept is that if something is the cause then when the cause changes the effect needs to also change. Here solar radiation has gone down and yet temperatures have gone up which should be simple enough for even you to understand

[Yellowdogtexan]

Stick it up your ass moron.It is amusing when laypersons try to read a case. Here two simple laypersons tried to understand the ruling of the SCOTUS and made fools of themselves. Again, the SCOTUS ruled that man made CO2 qualified as a pollutant and therefore was subject to regulation. The only way for that ruling to come about was a finding on global warming by the SCOTUS.

[Ringo]

It is amusing when laypersons try to read a case. Here two simple laypersons tried to understand the ruling of the SCOTUS and made fools of themselves. Again, the SCOTUS ruled that man made CO2 qualified as a pollutant and therefore was subject to regulation. The only way for that ruling to come about was a finding on global warming by the SCOTUS.


Oh WOW, we are now humbled as some fucking idiots and LAWYER morons get together and declare something, ans that in itself makes it SCIENTIFIC??Fuckin A it does, yea right, in La La Land where YOU hold Court!!:mw:charge:ydt

[Yellowdogtexan]

Oh WOW, we are now humbled as some fucking idiots and LAWYER morons get together and declare something, ans that in itself makes it SCIENTIFIC??Actually that is exactly what happened. The IPCC report collected peer reviewed science that was intended to be relied on by policy makers or decision makers. That is what the SCOTUS did. Lets look at the actual ruling. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-1120.ZO.htmlOn the merits, the first question is whether §202(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act authorizes EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles in the event that it forms a “judgment” that such emissions contribute to climate change. We have little trouble concluding that it does.The lawyers on the SCOTUS looked at the available scientific evidence and came to the correct policy determination that CO2 and greenhouse gases contribute to climate change and therefore meet the statutory definition of pollutant. Lawyers are trained to evaluate evidence including scientific evidence and here the SCOTUS had no trouble reaching the correct decision.

[Trueblue]

Why not deal with the problem like a capitalist? There's money to be made off of energy saving technology.

[BartonX]

Why not deal with the problem like a capitalist? There's money to be made off of energy saving technology.

There is money to be made off a stable of whores too but as Democrat Fitzer has taught us it isn't always prudent! :rofl

They said it was going for $1,000.00 an hour. I wonder how much that is a pound? :LL

[BartonX]

Actually that is exactly what happened. The IPCC report collected peer reviewed science that was intended to be relied on by policy makers or decision makers. That is what the SCOTUS did. Lets look at the actual ruling. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-1120.ZO.htmlThe lawyers on the SCOTUS looked at the available scientific evidence and came to the correct policy determination that CO2 and greenhouse gases contribute to climate change and therefore meet the statutory definition of pollutant. Lawyers are trained to evaluate evidence including scientific evidence and here the SCOTUS had no trouble reaching the correct decision.

Those nine alledged lawyers have no jurisdiction over the matter nor are they qualified to make the determination.

[Trueblue]

Dream on, your socialist utopia will never happen, I will fight it, with violence if need be.

And you may not know this but I have been well trained for the task if ever called upon.

from Publishers' Weekly, on War is a Force that Gives Us Meaning

"The communal march against an enemy generates a warm, unfamiliar bond with our neighbors, our community, our nation, wiping out unsettling undercurrents of alienation and dislocation," writes Chris Hedges, a foreign correspondent for the New York Times. In War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning, Hedges draws on his experiences covering conflicts in Bosnia, El Salvador and Israel as well as works of literature from the Iliad to Hannah Arendt's The Origins of Totalitarianism to look at what makes war so intoxicating for soldiers, politicians and ordinary citizens. He discusses outbreaks of nationalism, the wartime silencing of intellectuals and artists, the ways in which even a supposedly skeptical press glorifies the battlefield and other universal features of war, arguing not for pacifism but for responsibility and humility on the part of those who wage war.

[Yellowdogtexan]

Those nine alledged lawyers have no jurisdiction over the matter nor are they qualified to make the determination.Again, it is fortunate that your opinion does not matter here. The SCOTUS indeed had jurisdiction and did have the expertise to decide this issue. No one cares about the opinion of a silly layperson on this issue.

This was not a close question in that the SCOTUS decided that that the actions of the EPA were ..... therefore “arbitrary, capricious, … or otherwise not in accordance with law.” This is a very strigent standard and gave the SCOTUS and the courts jurisdiction to over rule the EPA and order it to classify CO2 and greenhouse gases as pollutants under the relevant act.

[Saguaro]

I have had more than enough with insults being slung around !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:pissed

[Yellowdogtexan]

After re-reading MASSACHUSETTS, et al., PETITIONERS v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY et al. it is clear that no sane attorney would take this case. If sued by this fool, Vice President Gore would remove the case to federal court and then move for sanctions and summary judgment based on the SCOTUS ruling in the above case. The idiot weatherman and any lawyer who he conned into taking this case would end owing Vice President Gore a great deal of money. Again based on an an extremely strict standard, the SCOTUS found that CO2 was a pollutant and that the EPA's refusal to regulate CO2 and greenhouse gases was therefore “arbitrary, capricious, … or otherwise not in accordance with law.” With this type of language and ruling, the courts would have no trouble in ruling against any fool stupid enought to bring such a case and any lawyer dumb enought to take this case.

[BartonX]

After re-reading MASSACHUSETTS, et al., PETITIONERS v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY et al. it is clear that no sane attorney would take this case. If sued by this fool, Vice President Gore would remove the case to federal court and then move for sanctions and summary judgment based on the SCOTUS ruling in the above case. The idiot weatherman and any lawyer who he conned into taking this case would end owing Vice President Gore a great deal of money. Again based on an an extremely strict standard, the SCOTUS found that CO2 was a pollutant and that the EPA's refusal to regulate CO2 and greenhouse gases was With this type of language and ruling, the courts would have no trouble in ruling against any fool stupid enought to bring such a case and any lawyer dumb enought to take this case.


How would you like those last words sir? With catsup, mustard or both? :hotdog

[Yellowdogtexan]

How would you like those last words sir? With catsup, mustard or both?Those words are based on the decision by the SCOTUS in MASSACHUSETTS, et al., PETITIONERS v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY et al. Your own silly article noted that the idiot weatherman did not have an attorney. I have just explained why this bozo does not have an attorney. I would love to see this moronic and foolish weatherman take the case on as pro se because we would again see proof of the legal wisdom thatA person who represents himself has a fool for a clientThat piece of wisdom is very applicable in this case.

[BartonX]

Those words are based on the decision by the SCOTUS in MASSACHUSETTS, et al., PETITIONERS v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY et al. Your own silly article noted that the idiot weatherman did not have an attorney. I have just explained why this bozo does not have an attorney. I would love to see this moronic and foolish weatherman take the case on as pro se because we would again see proof of the legal wisdom thatThat piece of wisdom is very applicable in this case.

Fucking lawyers made that phrase up to alarm people that were not educated in the fact that Our U.S. Constitution is the supreme Law of our land, that it alone interprets our Laws, and that it is written in the language of the common man so that anyone with reasonable intelligence could go to court and win without having to fall for the bullshit of spineless dickheads calling themselves lawyers.

As Shakespeare so aptly put it: "The first thing we need to do is hang all the lawyers". Those that gave us our Constitution had read this and understood it before they wrote this great lawyer free document. :)

By the way, that foolish weatherman as you call him is the founder of the Weather Channel and has real scientists at his disposal not the hacks you side with.

[Yellowdogtexan]

By the way, that foolish weatherman as you call him is the founder of the Weather Channel and has real scientists at his disposal not the hacks you side with.The foolish weatherman is no longer at the Weather Channel and could not even get a job there today because he lack the require accrediation.

The reason that the fool of a weatherman made this silly and stupid threat was because he was a conference of global warming deniers that the press refused to cover. The press also does not cover meetings of the flat earth society and so to get attention this fool made his foolish threat. http://www.ecorazzi.com/2008/03/04/weather-channel-founder-wants-to-sue-al-gore-for-global-warming-fraud/The founder of the Weather Channel, John Coleman, is angry. Like Bruce Banner-turning-into-Hulk angry. Apparently, he’s in a huff over the network’s reports on climate change and and claims ‘they’re telling us what to think.” He does have a point. Just last week, I heard a report that it was going to rain here and I took an umbrella with me to work. A classic example of the Weather Channel coercive ways. But seriously, this guy’s got a beef and let it be known at a skeptics conference on Global Warming in New York City yesterday. Here’s a great quote:

“[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 media stand to testify, I feel like that could become the vehicle to finally put some light on the fraud of global warming.”

Yawn. What a beautiful waste of time. Just like this conference, skeptics continue to throw everything in the book at denying climate change. The Heartland Institute — which organized this gathering — invited a circle-jerk of “conspiracy theorists, industry parrots, puzzle-makers, scientists for hire and those who just can’t let go of their flat-earth ways.” Coleman’s idea what we should sue the carbon credit industry — and those associated with it — is just another example of how far this crowd is willing to go to draw attention to their lunacy. Skepticism is a true force in keeping science on its toes, but these groups aren’t brining much to the table to make the world think otherwise. Oh well, they’re always good for a laugh — or better yet, as DeSmogBlog pointed out, a yawn.This fool will have a hard time getting any lawyer to take his stupid case because the SCOTUS has spoken.

Again, the fool has been kicked out of the profession and could not today get a job at the weather channel. He has been reduced to making impotent threats because that is the only way he can get any attention. The press does not care about the views of the flat earth societ or the global warming denial morons because both groups are frauds and jokes.

[Yellowdogtexan]

How would you like those last words sir? With catsup, mustard or both? How would you like your silly but amusing words served to you?? Your fool of weatherman has admitted that he is not going to sue Vice President and Noble Prize winner Al Gore. http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/196/6794/?ck=1On the moronic glen beck show your fool stated the following COLEMAN: I'm not launching any lawsuits but I'm asking the question that if Al Gore knows that CO2 forcing, that is, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from our fossil fuels, is not causing global warming, isn't he committing financial fraud when he sells carbon credits to people to offset their use of fossil fuels and putting carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? I've asked the question and believe me, a lot of people were really interested in that questionJust like most blowhards and fools, coleman is full of hot air. Just as I challenged you to file an amicus brief in the Bible distribution case and you were too much of a coward to do so, Coleman can not find a lawyer to take his case and is too scared to file a lawsuit himself. I love it when cowards and fools like Coleman back down. How is your amicus rant coming for the bible case?

[BartonX]

Again you demonstrate how little you know about the subject matter at hand. You fail to even comprehend basic legal concepts or any concept that is above a fourth grade level.

[Ringo]

There is money to be made off a stable of whores too but as Democrat Fitzer has taught us it isn't always prudent! :rofl

They said it was going for $1,000.00 an hour. I wonder how much that is a pound? :LL

Well lets see a Real VIRILE Liberal, might last 30 seconds, so its around $34,000 an hour and it runs about 8 1/3 dollars per pound, similar to a T Bone???

Al Gore had a Whore House once, trouble was he had to run the place by hand till the equipment arrived!!!:sheep:charge:sheep

[BartonX]

Well lets see a Real VIRILE Liberal, might last 30 seconds, so its around $34,000 an hour and it runs about 8 1/3 dollars per pound, similar to a T Bone???

Al Gore had a Whore House once, trouble was he had to run the place by hand till the equipment arrived!!!:sheep:charge:sheep

:rofl:rofl:rofl

[Yellowdogtexan]

Again you demonstrate how little you know about the subject matter at hand.Poor baby. Do not cry but your fool of a weatherman is just as much of a coward as you are. You were challenged to submit you stupid claims as an amicus rant (your position is far too stupid to be called a brief) in the bible distribution case and like a coward you ran away from this challenge. Just like you, this fool of a weatherman has run away from his plan to sue Vice President and Peace Prize winner Al Gore because he can not find a lawyer and he is too much of a coward to risk having all of assets ceased to cover any sanctions that would be awarded to Vice President Gore if such a silly suit was filed.

I love it when laypeople have to run away (like cowards) from their claims. Here you have much in common with the fake weatherman in that you both make claims that you can not back up.

[Yellowdogtexan]

By the way, that foolish weatherman as you call him is the founder of the Weather Channel and has real scientists at his disposal not the hacks you side with.You really like to demonstrate your ignorance at every opportunity. This fool of a weatherman was kicked out of the The Weather Channell after the first year of operation. http://www.sdcitybeat.com/cms/story/detail/coleman_s_got_it_figured_out/6376/In the early 1980s, Coleman persuaded Frank Batten of Landmark Communications to help him start a 24-hour news service. Coleman ran the station for its first year in 1982 before he was forced out, he has said, by corporate politics.I doubt that corporate politics had anything to do with why this fool was kicked out and why he is nothing but a weather person as a station in San Diego (not too difficult of job for someone of his limited abilities). Again, you are always wrong in your claims. You may want to learn something called the ability to read and may want to check your silly claims in order to keep from making a fool out of yourself. :LL