Weather Channel founder: Sue Al Gore for fraud

[jimpeel]

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

Weather Channel Founder: Sue Al Gore for Fraud
Friday, March 14, 2008

The founder of the Weather Channel wants to sue Al Gore for fraud, hoping a legal debate will settle the global-warming debate once and for all.

John Coleman, who founded the cable network in 1982, suggests suing for fraud proponents of global warming, including Al Gore, and companies that sell carbon credits.

"Is he committing financial fraud? That is the question," Coleman said.

"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," Coleman said. "I'm confident that the advocates of 'no significant effect from carbon dioxide' would win the case."

• Click here to watch video of Coleman on "Fox and Friends."

Coleman says his side of the global-warming debate is being buried in mainstream media circles.

"As you look at the atmosphere over the last 25 years, there's been perhaps a degree of warming, perhaps probably a whole lot less than that, and the last year has been so cold that that's been erased," he said.

"I think if we continue the cooling trend a couple of more years, the general public will at last begin to realize that they've been scammed on this global-warming thing."

[more]

 

[Gonz]

If you notice, Global Warming is being chaged to Climate Change. That way, whether it's raining or snowing, sunny or partly cloudy, hurricanes or hot spells, it can be blamed on someting that doesn't have squat to do with it so that there can be more taxes & fee's.

 

[SouthernN'Proud]

And lest we forget, ol' Al sells carbon credits through one of his business ventures. It's where he bought all of 'em he used after he got busted using something like 30 times the amount of energy in HIS home than he wanted anyone else to have in THEIR home. Nothin quite like lining your own pockets then tryin to create legislation to force everybody else to line 'em too.

Fuggin bastard.

 

[Gonz]

Carbon credits....can you say FRAUD?

 

[SouthernN'Proud]

But is it fraud? I mean, if some knucklehead is willing to buy some useless piece of crap, is anyone really being defrauded?

 

[Gonz]

Selling something under false pretenses is fraudulent.

 

[SouthernN'Proud]

Mayhap. But does it amount to the legal definition of fraud? Taking your criteria, four out of five ads we see would constitute fraud.

Don't get me wrong. I'd give a finger to see somebody take his ass to court and take him for every dime he has.

 

[Gonz]

The legal definition plus a willingness of the DA or some local Perry Mason to take up the cause.

 

[spike]

He actually won't sue from what I hear. Coleman is still a nut though.

 

[jimpeel]

He actually won't sue from what I hear. Coleman is still a nut though.

So the guy who is not on your side of the equation is a "nut"; but the guy who hawks global warming -- and swears he is carbon neutral because he takes a dollar out of his left pocket and puts it his right pocket -- is not a nut. Oh, yeah, did I mention he also is on your side of the equation?

Now you wouldn't be casting aspersions based solely on whether the person you are attacking is not on your side of the aisle, would you?

Post one of those "more neutral" links you are famous for to show us why you just know with certainty, borne of real research into the guy, that proves Coleman is a nut.

This should be rich.

Non-answer in

 

[spike]

So the guy who is not on your side of the equation is a "nut"

Now you wouldn't be casting aspersions based solely on whether the person you are attacking is not on your side of the aisle, would you?

Never seen you do that.

Anyone who would like to sue people because they don't agree is a nut. I like the trolling in the rest of your post though, shows real fanatism.

 

[jimpeel]

Never seen you do that.

Anyone who would like to sue people because they don't agree is a nut.

Then every lawsuit filed, anywhere and everywhere all over the world, is filed by a nut because every lawsuit filed, anywhere and everywhere all over the world, is filed by a plaintiff who does not agree with the defendant.

You really, really need to stop making these broad brush generalizations. It simply adds more damage to your already severely tarnished credibility.

I like the trolling in the rest of your post though, shows real fanatism.

And BINGO!!! there's the non-answer right on schedule. I knew you could do it!

Let's have a big round of applause and tell our winner what he has won Johnny Donovan!

You are so fuckin' predictable!

 

[spike]

Then every lawsuit filed, anywhere and everywhere all over the world, is filed by a nut because every lawsuit filed, anywhere and everywhere all over the world, is filed by a plaintiff who does not agree with the defendant.

There's usually a little more to it than that. Or can I sue you for disagreeing with me?

You really, really need to stop making these broad brush generalizations. It simply adds more damage to your already severely tarnished credibility.

My credibility? Keep up the childish insults and I'm going to be one of the few here that will even respond to you.

there's the non-answer right on schedule. I knew you could do it!

Pointing out your childish insults is not a non answer, it's a statement about your childish insults. Grow up Jim.

 

[jimpeel]

There's usually a little more to it than that. Or can I sue you for disagreeing with me?

You made the broad statement "Anyone who would like to sue people because they don't agree is a nut." That's ANYONE as in ANYONE. That was your wording.

My credibility? Keep up the childish insults and I'm going to be one of the few here that will even respond to you.

Hell, I'm still waiting for you to respond to me at all. Snappy one liners and retorts are not a response. A response would be to debate what is posted to you ON ITS MERITS and not some simpering "neener, neener" bullshit post wherein you admit that you don't even read the material offered because of agendae driven prejudices.

Pointing out your childish insults is not a non answer, it's a statement about your childish insults. Grow up Jim.

I predicted that you would give some off the wall bullshit response and you did exactly what I knew you would. You have demanded "more neutral" links from me that are from more balanced sites, yet when asked to do the same you come up with "Anyone who would like to sue people because they don't agree is a nut." No citations. No links. No testimonials. No first hand witness accounts. Nothing. Nada. Zip. Zero.

Yet you demand links from me and when I give them to you you segue off on a tangent and refuse to address what you have demanded. You are simply a bullshit artist.

 

[spike]

You made the broad statement "Anyone who would like to sue people because they don't agree is a nut." That's ANYONE as in ANYONE. That was your wording.

I stand by that. If you sue someone purely over a different opinion you are a nut.

Hell, I'm still waiting for you to respond to me at all. Snappy one liners and retorts are not a response. A response would be to debate what is posted to you ON ITS MERITS and not some simpering "neener, neener" bullshit post wherein you admit that you don't even read the material offered because of agendae driven prejudices.

Sorry it was just too fun to point out your hypocrisy. There isn't much MERIT in a propaganda site worth reading.

I predicted that you would give some off the wall bullshit response and you did exactly what I knew you would. You have demanded "more neutral" links from me

I'm not demanding that at all. Post whatever you feel like. It's fun.

you come up with "Anyone who would like to sue people because they don't agree is a nut." No citations. No links. No testimonials. No first hand witness accounts. Nothing. Nada. Zip. Zero.

I need to prove to you that if you are sued purely for a different opinion there's a problem? Sorry, I don't need a "testimonial" for that.

Yet you demand links from me and when I give them to you you segue off on a tangent and refuse to address what you have demanded. You are simply a bullshit artist.

Where did I demand links and refuse to address them? Did you give me a link to propaganda?

 

[jimpeel]

I stand by that. If you sue someone purely over a different opinion you are a nut.

Sorry it was just too fun to point out your hypocrisy. There isn't much MERIT in a propaganda site worth reading.

I'm not demanding that at all. Post whatever you feel like. It's fun.

I need to prove to you that if you are sued purely for a different opinion there's a problem? Sorry, I don't need a "testimonial" for that.

Where did I demand links and refuse to address them? Did you give me a link to propaganda?

Fuck it. We're done.

You exist here as an agent provocateur with no intention other than to stir the pot while adding nothing at all to the discussion. You hope the member list will change enough to keep you in stitches while hoping that the rest of the group never catches on to your antics.

You aren't in my league in debating so you concentrate on weak-ass bullshit, like who sponsors what website, so you don't have to look like the clown you are before the assemblage here. In a real debate you know you would get your ass handed to you. So you play the clown monkey on the board trying to get laughs from jokes that aren't funny.

Your sole premise on this board is to come in, have some fun fucking with the other posters and then ducking back into the night. You are the classic example of a troll, a hit-and-run bullshit artist who has nothing to back up his assertions except extollations of "Nuh-uh!"

Like I said, we're done. Go spank your monkey.

 

[spike]

You aren't in my league in debating

Yes, you are still at elementary school level. Like I've said, take a logic class Jim.

so you concentrate on weak-ass bullshit, like who sponsors what website

Being hypocritical again jim? Remember dismissing sites as "having an axe to grind"?

In a real debate you know you would get your ass handed to you.

Nope, smack you down every time. You always have to bring things down to insults when you've lost like a little kid. Very predictable, like you've done again in this thread.

Your sole premise on this board is to come in, have some fun fucking with the other posters and then ducking back into the night.

Nope, I come in, prove you wrong, and stay.

[

You are the classic example of a troll, a hit-and-run bullshit artist who has nothing to back up his assertions except extollations of "Nuh-uh!"

Oh no Jim, I back up what I say. You merely throw around insults and make childish comments about avatars when you don't have anything else left.

Grow up.

 

[Inkara1]

I don't think I've read any posts by either of those two in a couple of weeks. My eyes just glaze over. I just click on the thread and scroll through real quick to see if anyone else has said anything and also to have the thread be marked as visited.

 

[chcr]

I don't think I've read any posts by either of those two in a couple of weeks. My eyes just glaze over. I just click on the thread and scroll through real quick to see if anyone else has said anything and also to have the thread be marked as visited.

 

[BeardofPants]

I don't think I've read any posts by either of those two in a couple of weeks. My eyes just glaze over. I just click on the thread and scroll through real quick to see if anyone else has said anything and also to have the thread be marked as visited.

Yep, all I see is *wank wank wank waaaank*