Weather Channel Owner Suing Al Gore For Fraud....

[BrianH]

...I've been waiting for this to happen...I'm not a global warming believer...I do believe that the globe may be warming, but I don't think we've spread up the process as much as people suggest that we do. Natural Climate Cycle.
--One volcano eruption puts more dangerous gases into the atmospher then humans ever thought about doing.

 

[Gunny]

...I've been waiting for this to happen...I'm not a global warming believer...I do believe that the globe may be warming, but I don't think we've spread up the process as much as people suggest that we do. Natural Climate Cycle.
--One volcano eruption puts more dangerous gases into the atmospher then humans ever thought about doing.

Got a link to the story?

 

[BrianH]

Yeah Gunny, here it is.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,337710,00.html

It may be biased, but you'll still get the point.

 

[Larkinn]

Actually he is only suggesting other people sue Gore. I can think of two reasons for this.

1) He doesn't want to waste his own money on an obviously frivolous case.

2) He can't find a lawyer to take it either because of the obvious lack of financial incentives or they are all worried about being rule 11'ed for moronic lawsuits.

 

[Diuretic]

I would have the thought the Weather Channel would be whooping it up over global climate change...think of the footage!!

 

[Annie]

If there was a class action suit by those harmed by all the hoopla of just Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth," they may well win. One place it's already been found at least wanting is in the British court:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/Story?id=3719791&page=1

 

[Diuretic]

Nope Kathianne, that decision can't be generalised.

And global warming marches on.

 

[jillian]

Actually he is only suggesting other people sue Gore. I can think of two reasons for this.

1) He doesn't want to waste his own money on an obviously frivolous case.

2) He can't find a lawyer to take it either because of the obvious lack of financial incentives or they are all worried about being rule 11'ed for moronic lawsuits.

So you mean, could it be.... the OP is a lie?

What it should really say is:

Weather Channel Owner Should Be Sued By Al Gore for encouragment of frivolous lawsuits.

 

[BrianH]

I think he is encouraging people to sue different types of global warming advocates. The weather channel owner wants to sue Gore himself. From what I gathered from the article, the owner had attempted to arrange debates with Gore but was unable to get Gore to debate them. So if a civil suit was filed, they would be forced to "debate" in the court of law.

Here's a quote from the article that I'm referring to.

"Since we can't get a debate, I thought perhaps if we had a legal challenge and went into a court of law, where it was our scientists and their scientists, and all the legal proceedings with the discovery and all their documents from both sides and scientific testimony from both sides, we could finally get a good solid debate on the issue,"

 

[jillian]

I think he is encouraging people to sue different types of global warming advocates. The weather channel owner wants to sue Gore himself. From what I gathered from the article, the owner had attempted to arrange debates with Gore but was unable to get Gore to debate them. So if a civil suit was filed, they would be forced to "debate" in the court of law.

Here's a quote from the article that I'm referring to.

"Since we can't get a debate, I thought perhaps if we had a legal challenge and went into a court of law, where it was our scientists and their scientists, and all the legal proceedings with the discovery and all their documents from both sides and scientific testimony from both sides, we could finally get a good solid debate on the issue,"

That isn't what the OP said, though, was it?

As for "debate". What debate? The fact that all the reliable, peer reviewed science supports climate change?

The problem for the confused folk on the right who, for some reason unbeknownst to me, think they should protect oil companies instead of the planet they're leaving their children, is that someone called it global "warming" instead of "climate change". This seems to give the right some type of satisfaction everytime something is cold.

Fact: The planet is warming.
Fact: This results in bizarre weather patterns (like Tornadoes in Brooklyn, NY)
Fact: We contribute (note: I didn't say "cause", I said "contribute") by use of carbon based energy sources.
Fact: It's good policy both environmentally and anti-terrorist, to wean off of oil.

Fact: Your OP wasn't true. He didn't bring a suit himself. He wants the "little people" to do it for him so he can harass people out of telling the truth since the right has failed every other way.

Cheers.

 

[Gunny]

That isn't what the OP said, though, was it?

As for "debate". What debate? The fact that all the reliable, peer reviewed science supports climate change?

The problem for the confused folk on the right who, for some reason unbeknownst to me, think they should protect oil companies instead of the planet they're leaving their children, is that someone called it global "warming" instead of "climate change". This seems to give the right some type of satisfaction everytime something is cold.

Fact: The planet is warming.
Fact: This results in bizarre weather patterns (like Tornadoes in Brooklyn, NY)
Fact: We contribute (note: I didn't say "cause", I said "contribute") by use of carbon based energy sources.
Fact: It's good policy both environmentally and anti-terrorist, to wean off of oil.

Fact: Your OP wasn't true. He didn't bring a suit himself. He wants the "little people" to do it for him so he can harass people out of telling the truth since the right has failed every other way.

Cheers.

Problem with your theory is the Weather Channel is a big cheerleader for the global warming clique. There was an article posted within the past 6 months detailing how Her Highness, Dr Heidi Cullen was harrassing and got fired any of the meteorologists who refused to get on board the man-made global warming theory.

Yes, it makes perfectly good sense for man to try and control the amount of pollution he contributes to the environment but it is not a proven fact that global warming would not occur without man's contribution. It IS however a proben fact that the Earth has gone through cyclical climate changes WITHOUT man's contribution.

Al Gore is selling speculative theory as fact. He probably should be sued for the sensationalist sham he's perpetrating.

 

[BrianH]

That isn't what the OP said, though, was it?

As for "debate". What debate? The fact that all the reliable, peer reviewed science supports climate change?

The problem for the confused folk on the right who, for some reason unbeknownst to me, think they should protect oil companies instead of the planet they're leaving their children, is that someone called it global "warming" instead of "climate change". This seems to give the right some type of satisfaction everytime something is cold.

Fact: The planet is warming.
Fact: This results in bizarre weather patterns (like Tornadoes in Brooklyn, NY)
Fact: We contribute (note: I didn't say "cause", I said "contribute") by use of carbon based energy sources.
Fact: It's good policy both environmentally and anti-terrorist, to wean off of oil.

Fact: Your OP wasn't true. He didn't bring a suit himself. He wants the "little people" to do it for him so he can harass people out of telling the truth since the right has failed every other way.

Cheers.

Jillian, what part of the direct quote do you not understand?

"Since we can't get a debate, I thought perhaps if we had a legal challenge and went into a court of law, where it was our scientists and their scientists, and all the legal proceedings with the discovery and all their documents from both sides and scientific testimony from both sides, we could finally get a good solid debate on the issue,"

This quote is directly from the owner himself. It sounds like you're a bit confused yourself.

In response to your little FACT list...check my OP, i said that the globe may be warming. I just don't think people contribute as much as Gore suggests. It's natural and cyclical climate change. Are you telling me that this is the only time in history that the globe has "warmed" and it's because of humans? Could it possible be because at one point in time, the earth was all water to begin with? Then it became a ball of Ice in something we historians call the Ice Age. And maybe, possibly, the ice caps that we know today were not hear originally, but are still effects of the ice age. (don't quote me on that, ice caps may have always existed-who knows) Global warming, caused by humans, is a fallacy.

As far as your statement goes about oil companies, doesn't have anything to do with what was posted.

As far as pollution is concerned, it's not a bad thing to regulate pollution...but someone should sue Gore, for duping people and winning the Nobel Peace Prize. He's the Barry Bonds of the Nobel Peace Prize. Al Gore flew to Norway in his private jet, burning hundreds of gallons of fuel. Some pollution activist.

 

[Larkinn]

I think he is encouraging people to sue different types of global warming advocates. The weather channel owner wants to sue Gore himself. From what I gathered from the article, the owner had attempted to arrange debates with Gore but was unable to get Gore to debate them. So if a civil suit was filed, they would be forced to "debate" in the court of law.

Probably not actually. He could try, but I doubt the case would go anywhere. By the way...where again is Republican outrage over this frivolous lawsuit? He doesn't even expect to win...he is just using the courtrooms as a surrogate debating forum.

As far as pollution is concerned, it's not a bad thing to regulate pollution...but someone should sue Gore, for duping people and winning the Nobel Peace Prize. He's the Barry Bonds of the Nobel Peace Prize. Al Gore flew to Norway in his private jet, burning hundreds of gallons of fuel. Some pollution activist.

Yes...lets start suing people because we think they lied. Free speech? Whats that?

 

[BrianH]

I agree that the case will never go anywhere, but my main point in posting this thread is that the weather channel owner wants to sue to "force" a debate on Al Gore. He wants his scientists against their scientists. If I'm not mistaken, I think he mentioned his position on carbon dioxide. It's very interesting really.

The weather channel actually believes in global warming, they just don't believe that CO2 emissions are causing this unbelievable warming of the climate.

Suing for fraud is a real thing in this country, it will be interesting to see if the courts put this type of "fraud" in that category.

I think what their trying to get at is that if someone profits from medically helping people, and their not doctors, then that's illegal. Now does the same apply if people are profiting from stuff that's never been proven? I don't know, but it will all be interesting in the same. That was the main purpose of my post.

 

[Larkinn]

I agree that the case will never go anywhere, but my main point in posting this thread is that the weather channel owner wants to sue to "force" a debate on Al Gore. He wants his scientists against their scientists. If I'm not mistaken, I think he mentioned his position on carbon dioxide. It's very interesting really.

The point is not just that he will lose the case, but that he won't even get to argue the case on the merits. Its a ridiculous case and won't even get that far.

Suing for fraud is a real thing in this country, it will be interesting to see if the courts put this type of "fraud" in that category.

Yes, I'm aware that one can sue for fraud. This isn't fraud. Nor would he be allowed to represent a class action, since he obviously isn't representative of the class.

I think what their trying to get at is that if someone profits from medically helping people, and their not doctors, then that's illegal.
Now does the same apply if people are profiting from stuff that's never been proven? I don't know, but it will all be interesting in the same. That was the main purpose of my post.

There is a licensing requirement to becoming a doctor. No such requirement exists when talking, advocating, or making money from global warming.

 

[BrianH]

Fair enough...I just thought it was an interesting issue, and I knew it was a matter of time for something like this to happen, that's all. You can microscopically analyze my post all you'd like. I'm just saying that it's interesting and that if it does come to pass, it will interesting to see what happens.

 

[trobinett]

I'm sure Jillian, and most other Lawyers love you guy's.

Sue who ever you want, won't make a hoot of a difference.

The BEST thing that could come of this, no one pays ANY fucking attention to it.

Tell me the LAST time that a law suit fixed, OR change ANYTHING, please?

 

[Diuretic]

I'm sure Jillian, and most other Lawyers love you guy's.

Sue who ever you want, won't make a hoot of a difference.

The BEST thing that could come of this, no one pays ANY fucking attention to it.

Tell me the LAST time that a law suit fixed, OR change ANYTHING, please?

Um - Nader and the Pinto?

 

[trobinett]

Um - Nader and the Pinto?

Only in the minds of the liberal media, and those that believe the crap they spew.

You don't REALLY believe that ANYTHING was made better, safer, or caused the consumer to be better protected by all that smoke and mirrors do you?

 

[Diuretic]

Only in the minds of the liberal media, and those that believe the crap they spew.

You don't REALLY believe that ANYTHING was made better, safer, or caused the consumer to be better protected by all that smoke and mirrors do you?

What I believe isn't relevant. The facts speak for themselves. If you bother to check the full story on the corporate culture that tried to defend against Nader in the Pinto issue then you'll understand why Nader was successful in more than consumer protection in that matter.

Anyway, you issued a challenge, I answered it without raising a sweat.

Try again.