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

[Charles_Main]

Gore could care less about truth.

You do know he has made about 100 million dollars selling his Alarmist Climate Change lies right?

 

[BrianH]

Gore could care less about truth.

You do know he has made about 100 million dollars selling his Alarmist Climate Change lies right?

I wouldn't be suprised. It's all a scam in my opinon. I believe the globe may be warming, but I don't think humans have caused it and I'm not convinced that CO2 is the culprit.

 

[Foxfyre]

I didn't have time to read the whole thread, but is this a class action suit? If so, where do I sign up?

 

[BrianH]

I didn't have time to read the whole thread, but is this a class action suit? If so, where do I sign up?

It really is going to go nowhere (the lawsuit). But I posted this thread because I thought it would be interesting to see what evolved from it. The owner of the Weather Channel has apparantly attempted to get Al Gore to debate him on CO2. Supposedly Gore has refused, so the owner of TWC wanted to sue Gore in order to get a "debate" going about it because he thinks Gore is making money off of a fraudulent fairy-tale. The only thing, is it's kind of a "buyer-beware" market and the lawsuit would achieve nothing. I just thought it would be interesting to see what "facts" would arise out of it. That's why it was posting, I had clue it would take the path it has been down...lol

 

[Foxfyre]

Well any kind of civil suit requires compensation for provable damages or requirement for action to avoid provable damages. And my post was tongue-in-cheek as I have incurred no verifiable damages.....yet.......due to anything Al Gore has done. Now if it could be proved that Al Gore did use bogus information that compelled action that did cause damages to me, I might have a case or at least could be party to a class action suit.

I do believe that the whole AGW thing is ill conceived, is likely based on flawed science, and I wish to resist as much as possible having my freedoms and choices eroded and my lifestyle reduced based on what very well is junk science.

 

[AllieBaba]

Will they make him give back his Oscar?

 

[BrianH]

Well any kind of civil suit requires compensation for provable damages or requirement for action to avoid provable damages. And my post was tongue-in-cheek as I have incurred no verifiable damages.....yet.......due to anything Al Gore has done. Now if it could be proved that Al Gore did use bogus information that compelled action that did cause damages to me, I might have a case or at least could be party to a class action suit.

I do believe that the whole AGW thing is ill conceived, is likely based on flawed science, and I wish to resist as much as possible having my freedoms and choices eroded and my lifestyle reduced based on what very well is junk science.

I agree. I'm the first to admit that I think the earth may be warming, but AGW is a bit extreme. Especially since science clearly shows that all of the planets in our solar system are warming, as well as other scientific observations and fact that is being conveniently dismissed by AGW activists.

 

[Meister]

Well any kind of civil suit requires compensation for provable damages or requirement for action to avoid provable damages. And my post was tongue-in-cheek as I have incurred no verifiable damages.....yet.......due to anything Al Gore has done. Now if it could be proved that Al Gore did use bogus information that compelled action that did cause damages to me, I might have a case or at least could be party to a class action suit.

I do believe that the whole AGW thing is ill conceived, is likely based on flawed science, and I wish to resist as much as possible having my freedoms and choices eroded and my lifestyle reduced based on what very well is junk science.

I agree. I'm the first to admit that I think the earth may be warming, but AGW is a bit extreme. Especially since science clearly shows that all of the planets in our solar system are warming, as well as other scientific observations and fact that is being conveniently dismissed by AGW activists.

There are some good common sense posts on this thread. I too, agree that the earth is warming...but I am in no way convinced that Man is the culprit of it. The last thing I want to hear is some "green religion" fanatic spouting off that the SKY IS FALLING.

 

[Old Rocks]

Well any kind of civil suit requires compensation for provable damages or requirement for action to avoid provable damages. And my post was tongue-in-cheek as I have incurred no verifiable damages.....yet.......due to anything Al Gore has done. Now if it could be proved that Al Gore did use bogus information that compelled action that did cause damages to me, I might have a case or at least could be party to a class action suit.

I do believe that the whole AGW thing is ill conceived, is likely based on flawed science, and I wish to resist as much as possible having my freedoms and choices eroded and my lifestyle reduced based on what very well is junk science.

I agree. I'm the first to admit that I think the earth may be warming, but AGW is a bit extreme. Especially since science clearly shows that all of the planets in our solar system are warming, as well as other scientific observations and fact that is being conveniently dismissed by AGW activists.

Another crock of shit.

Brightening Neptune, Cooling Uranus « Fermi Paradox

 

[Old Rocks]

Brian, most of the text of his posts are cut-and-paste jobs from online journals. This might be why he's doing a fairly poor job of answering your questions.

Climate scientists do not "know" CO2 is the bad guy. They DO know that CO2 can force warming slightly in a controled setting. They DO know that measured temperatures have increased on average over the past 100 years.

They do NOT know, however, how this slight increase in atmospheric CO2 increase resonates in our extremely chaotic climate system. In the models that project runaway warming, they ASSUME a strong net positive feedback mechanism that accelerates/amplifies the initial CO2 input. It is these assumptions about feedback that lead to the catastrophic scenarios.

You can prove that CO2 can cause an initial preturbance, but the response of the climate system to that input CANNOT be proven empirically.

The reality is that when scientists encounter an unknown, but longterm stable system, they assume the system is regulated by NEGATIVE FEEDBACK! Which makes sense of course, since systems dominated by positive feedbacks are not stable over time. Prior irregular inputs to the climate system have not turned the Earth into a Venus-like inferno, or a Mars-like ice rock. It seems like a strong positive feedback mechanism is a pretty dim assumption - but don't tell that to AGW alarmists!

Really, really stupid post. Scientists do know that CO2 is the major GHG. They have known of GHGs since Fourier in 1820. And here is a link that gives the history of the research into CO2.
The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

 

[jreeves]

Brian, most of the text of his posts are cut-and-paste jobs from online journals. This might be why he's doing a fairly poor job of answering your questions.

Climate scientists do not "know" CO2 is the bad guy. They DO know that CO2 can force warming slightly in a controled setting. They DO know that measured temperatures have increased on average over the past 100 years.

They do NOT know, however, how this slight increase in atmospheric CO2 increase resonates in our extremely chaotic climate system. In the models that project runaway warming, they ASSUME a strong net positive feedback mechanism that accelerates/amplifies the initial CO2 input. It is these assumptions about feedback that lead to the catastrophic scenarios.

You can prove that CO2 can cause an initial preturbance, but the response of the climate system to that input CANNOT be proven empirically.

The reality is that when scientists encounter an unknown, but longterm stable system, they assume the system is regulated by NEGATIVE FEEDBACK! Which makes sense of course, since systems dominated by positive feedbacks are not stable over time. Prior irregular inputs to the climate system have not turned the Earth into a Venus-like inferno, or a Mars-like ice rock. It seems like a strong positive feedback mechanism is a pretty dim assumption - but don't tell that to AGW alarmists!

Really, really stupid post. Scientists do know that CO2 is the major GHG. They have known of GHGs since Fourier in 1820. And here is a link that gives the history of the research into CO2.
The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Here's a link showing that CO2 isn't as a major GHG as you would like to claim.....
Global-warming methane spiked in 2007 - environment - 30 October 2008 - New Scientist
Levels of climate-warming methane - a greenhouse gas 25 times as potent as carbon dioxide - rose abruptly in Earth's atmosphere last year, and we don't know why.

The concentration of methane, the primary component of natural gas, in the atmosphere has more than doubled since pre-industrial times, but remained largely stable over the last decade or so before rising in 2007, researchers said.

This stability in methane levels had led scientists to believe that emissions of the gas from natural sources like livestock and wetlands, as well as from human activities like coal and gas production, were balanced by the rate of destruction of methane in the atmosphere.

But starting early last year, that balance was upset as millions of tonnes of methane were released into the air.

"The thing that's really surprising is that it's coming after this period of very level emissions," said Matthew Rigby of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "The worry is that we just don't understand the methane cycle very well."

 

[Old Rocks]

Quite on the contrary, CO2 is at present the primary greenhouse gas. CO2 is at 387 ppm, CH4 is at 1780 ppb. The CH4 is about 250 times less than the CO2. However, should the Artic methane release continue, and warm the oceans enough that the continental shelf clathrates would release a major portion of their CH4, then CH4 would be the primary driver of warming, and there would be a major extinction.

Carbon dioxide, methane levels rise sharply in 2007

Another point on CH4, it is far more than 25 times as potent a greenhouse gas as CO2, for when it oxidizes, it forms CO2 and H20. So the combined effect of CH4, CO2, and H2O is closer to 60 times the total heating of a molecule of CO2.

 

[BrianH]

AGW only theorizes why the earth is heating since MAN has begun burning fossil fuels. It does not explain why the earth has heated and cooled before; or even before man was around. Scientists have no clue how fast the earth has heated and cooled during Pre-History.

I have yet to see anyone prove that CO2 and Man are the culprits behind global warming. That especially includes posters on these threads

 

[jreeves]

Quite on the contrary, CO2 is at present the primary greenhouse gas. CO2 is at 387 ppm, CH4 is at 1780 ppb. The CH4 is about 250 times less than the CO2. However, should the Artic methane release continue, and warm the oceans enough that the continental shelf clathrates would release a major portion of their CH4, then CH4 would be the primary driver of warming, and there would be a major extinction.

Carbon dioxide, methane levels rise sharply in 2007

Another point on CH4, it is far more than 25 times as potent a greenhouse gas as CO2, for when it oxidizes, it forms CO2 and H20. So the combined effect of CH4, CO2, and H2O is closer to 60 times the total heating of a molecule of CO2.

Global-warming methane spiked in 2007 - environment - 30 October 2008 - New Scientist
Levels of climate-warming methane - a greenhouse gas 25 times as potent as carbon dioxide - rose abruptly in Earth's atmosphere last year, and we don't know why.

BTW, the major contributor to CO2 emmissions isn't burning fossil fuels in industrialization, its meat production. Want to save the planet from CO2? Stop eating meat or meat byproducts. You alone could save the planet from 1.5 billion tons of CO2 emmissions by dropping meat and going on a vegan diet. But you're not really concerned about that, your only concern is spouting your BS. Hypocrite...

 

[Old Rocks]

Quite on the contrary, CO2 is at present the primary greenhouse gas. CO2 is at 387 ppm, CH4 is at 1780 ppb. The CH4 is about 250 times less than the CO2. However, should the Artic methane release continue, and warm the oceans enough that the continental shelf clathrates would release a major portion of their CH4, then CH4 would be the primary driver of warming, and there would be a major extinction.

Carbon dioxide, methane levels rise sharply in 2007

Another point on CH4, it is far more than 25 times as potent a greenhouse gas as CO2, for when it oxidizes, it forms CO2 and H20. So the combined effect of CH4, CO2, and H2O is closer to 60 times the total heating of a molecule of CO2.

Global-warming methane spiked in 2007 - environment - 30 October 2008 - New Scientist
Levels of climate-warming methane - a greenhouse gas 25 times as potent as carbon dioxide - rose abruptly in Earth's atmosphere last year, and we don't know why.

BTW, the major contributor to CO2 emmissions isn't burning fossil fuels in industrialization, its meat production. Want to save the planet from CO2? Stop eating meat or meat byproducts. You alone could save the planet from 1.5 billion tons of CO2 emmissions by dropping meat and going on a vegan diet. But you're not really concerned about that, your only concern is spouting your BS. Hypocrite...

I am going to assume that you meant CH4, not CO2. For the major contributor of CO2 is the burning of fossil fuels. And the leveling off of the CH4 was created by the switch to dryland rice farming, not a decrease in ruminents. The sudden present increase is due to the outgassing of the permafrost areas, and Arctic Ocean clathrates. Those are major feedbacks created by the warming that CO2 has caused.

As for the rest of your sillyness, the CH4 levels were not increasing when we had vast herds of buffulo, wildebeast, and caribou. They began increasing when the wetland rice farming increased as Asia's population ballooned.

 

[jreeves]

Quite on the contrary, CO2 is at present the primary greenhouse gas. CO2 is at 387 ppm, CH4 is at 1780 ppb. The CH4 is about 250 times less than the CO2. However, should the Artic methane release continue, and warm the oceans enough that the continental shelf clathrates would release a major portion of their CH4, then CH4 would be the primary driver of warming, and there would be a major extinction.

Carbon dioxide, methane levels rise sharply in 2007

Another point on CH4, it is far more than 25 times as potent a greenhouse gas as CO2, for when it oxidizes, it forms CO2 and H20. So the combined effect of CH4, CO2, and H2O is closer to 60 times the total heating of a molecule of CO2.

Global-warming methane spiked in 2007 - environment - 30 October 2008 - New Scientist
Levels of climate-warming methane - a greenhouse gas 25 times as potent as carbon dioxide - rose abruptly in Earth's atmosphere last year, and we don't know why.

BTW, the major contributor to CO2 emmissions isn't burning fossil fuels in industrialization, its meat production. Want to save the planet from CO2? Stop eating meat or meat byproducts. You alone could save the planet from 1.5 billion tons of CO2 emmissions by dropping meat and going on a vegan diet. But you're not really concerned about that, your only concern is spouting your BS. Hypocrite...

I am going to assume that you meant CH4, not CO2. For the major contributor of CO2 is the burning of fossil fuels. And the leveling off of the CH4 was created by the switch to dryland rice farming, not a decrease in ruminents. The sudden present increase is due to the outgassing of the permafrost areas, and Arctic Ocean clathrates. Those are major feedbacks created by the warming that CO2 has caused.

As for the rest of your sillyness, the CH4 levels were not increasing when we had vast herds of buffulo, wildebeast, and caribou. They began increasing when the wetland rice farming increased as Asia's population ballooned.

If it is solely due to permafrost heating, then why the rise in methane levels in the southern hemisphere? See...
Global-warming methane spiked in 2007 - environment - 30 October 2008 - New Scientist
They say a rise in methane in the northern hemisphere might be the result of a year-long warm spell in Siberia, where wetlands harbour methane-producing bacteria, but they have no immediate answer as to why emissions rose in the southern hemisphere at the same time.

You seem to state that long term warming in Siberia is matter of factly the cause. Whereas scientists and researchers state it might be the cause of elevated methane levels. Also you offer no reason at all, of the elevated methane levels in the southern hemisphere.

As far as meat production not being the major contributor to CO2 emmissions...
UN’s Top Climate Scientist Urges People to Combat Climate Change by Eating Less Meat : Planetsave
CIWF’s ambassador Joyce D’Silva told the BBC: “Surveys show people are anxious about their personal carbon footprints and cutting back on car journeys and so on; but they may not realize that changing what’s on their plate could have an even bigger effect.”
BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Shun meat, says UN climate chief
UN figures suggest that meat production puts more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than transport.

 

[Old Rocks]

Global-warming methane spiked in 2007 - environment - 30 October 2008 - New Scientist
Levels of climate-warming methane - a greenhouse gas 25 times as potent as carbon dioxide - rose abruptly in Earth's atmosphere last year, and we don't know why.

BTW, the major contributor to CO2 emmissions isn't burning fossil fuels in industrialization, its meat production. Want to save the planet from CO2? Stop eating meat or meat byproducts. You alone could save the planet from 1.5 billion tons of CO2 emmissions by dropping meat and going on a vegan diet. But you're not really concerned about that, your only concern is spouting your BS. Hypocrite...

I am going to assume that you meant CH4, not CO2. For the major contributor of CO2 is the burning of fossil fuels. And the leveling off of the CH4 was created by the switch to dryland rice farming, not a decrease in ruminents. The sudden present increase is due to the outgassing of the permafrost areas, and Arctic Ocean clathrates. Those are major feedbacks created by the warming that CO2 has caused.

As for the rest of your sillyness, the CH4 levels were not increasing when we had vast herds of buffulo, wildebeast, and caribou. They began increasing when the wetland rice farming increased as Asia's population ballooned.

If it is solely due to permafrost heating, then why the rise in methane levels in the southern hemisphere? See...
Global-warming methane spiked in 2007 - environment - 30 October 2008 - New Scientist
They say a rise in methane in the northern hemisphere might be the result of a year-long warm spell in Siberia, where wetlands harbour methane-producing bacteria, but they have no immediate answer as to why emissions rose in the southern hemisphere at the same time.

You seem to state that long term warming in Siberia is matter of factly the cause. Whereas scientists and researchers state it might be the cause of elevated methane levels. Also you offer no reason at all, of the elevated methane levels in the southern hemisphere.

As far as meat production not being the major contributor to CO2 emmissions...
UN’s Top Climate Scientist Urges People to Combat Climate Change by Eating Less Meat : Planetsave
CIWF’s ambassador Joyce D’Silva told the BBC: “Surveys show people are anxious about their personal carbon footprints and cutting back on car journeys and so on; but they may not realize that changing what’s on their plate could have an even bigger effect.”
BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Shun meat, says UN climate chief
UN figures suggest that meat production puts more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than transport.

The last time I looked, there was no fence at the equator to prevent the mixing of gases in the northern hemisphere and southern hemisphere.

Well, yes, the raising of meat puts more CH4 into the atmosphere than transport. We burn CH4 in transport, silly!

 

[jreeves]

I am going to assume that you meant CH4, not CO2. For the major contributor of CO2 is the burning of fossil fuels. And the leveling off of the CH4 was created by the switch to dryland rice farming, not a decrease in ruminents. The sudden present increase is due to the outgassing of the permafrost areas, and Arctic Ocean clathrates. Those are major feedbacks created by the warming that CO2 has caused.

As for the rest of your sillyness, the CH4 levels were not increasing when we had vast herds of buffulo, wildebeast, and caribou. They began increasing when the wetland rice farming increased as Asia's population ballooned.

If it is solely due to permafrost heating, then why the rise in methane levels in the southern hemisphere? See...
Global-warming methane spiked in 2007 - environment - 30 October 2008 - New Scientist
They say a rise in methane in the northern hemisphere might be the result of a year-long warm spell in Siberia, where wetlands harbour methane-producing bacteria, but they have no immediate answer as to why emissions rose in the southern hemisphere at the same time.

You seem to state that long term warming in Siberia is matter of factly the cause. Whereas scientists and researchers state it might be the cause of elevated methane levels. Also you offer no reason at all, of the elevated methane levels in the southern hemisphere.

As far as meat production not being the major contributor to CO2 emmissions...
UN’s Top Climate Scientist Urges People to Combat Climate Change by Eating Less Meat : Planetsave
CIWF’s ambassador Joyce D’Silva told the BBC: “Surveys show people are anxious about their personal carbon footprints and cutting back on car journeys and so on; but they may not realize that changing what’s on their plate could have an even bigger effect.”
BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Shun meat, says UN climate chief
UN figures suggest that meat production puts more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than transport.

The last time I looked, there was no fence at the equator to prevent the mixing of gases in the northern hemisphere and southern hemisphere.

Well, yes, the raising of meat puts more CH4 into the atmosphere than transport. We burn CH4 in transport, silly!

Of course there is no fence, you will see elevated levels of CO2, CH4 or NO2 where the emmissions are taking place. That comment was just plain dumb.

The transporting of meat is only part of the equation, damn your dense.
BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Shun meat, says UN climate chief
The FAO figure of 18% includes greenhouse gases released in every part of the meat production cycle - clearing forested land, making and transporting fertiliser, burning fossil fuels in farm vehicles, and the front and rear end emissions of cattle and sheep.

LOL....front and rear end emissions which is CH4....

Stop eating meat you hypocrite or don't come preaching about the need to change transportation CO2 emissions.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

..
--One volcano eruption puts more dangerous gases into the atmospher then humans ever thought about doing.

That isn't actually true.

 

[Old Rocks]

..
--One volcano eruption puts more dangerous gases into the atmospher then humans ever thought about doing.

That isn't actually true.

Now Tuba, you know that those damned geologists at the USGS don't know a damned thing, and are just making up the figure of 130 to 150 times more anthropogenic CO2 than volcanic. LOL.