How about posting this piece, questioning the entire forecasting methods used by the IPCC. I would like to see it discussed further.
Climate Panel On Hot Seat
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080314/COMMENTARY/702895001/home.html

It would be an excellent idea to put Gore in a situation where he has to answer questions from a hostile source, and under threat of perjury.

He got thrashed by a UK judge. It would likely be worse in this country.

Yep, that's exactly what this debate needs, a bunch of lawyers trying to decide what the definition of "is" is.

Seriously, after the ambulance chasers got done with it, there would be no money left on either side to investigate the problem.

A strong argument could be made that most of the "problems" in today's society can be traced to the practices and results obtained by the multitude of legal beagles that inhabit the planet. Maybe if we muzzled them, GW would disappear. LOL

And, they would not settle the science at all since this really is a discussion of world politics not whether the weather is changing or not.

As if a segueway, the article posted by Bill is interesting and proves my point.

However, as it was pointed out to me by one of our resident AGWers, the TIMES is not one of the 3 bastions of journalism on the planet. So obviously the author and article are tainted by Big Oil money.

John Coleman is taking a page right out of the environmental activists handbook - if all else fails, sue! Groups like the Sierra Club sue the U.S. Governemnt on a regular basis, often with great success. We've all heard about spotted owls and snail darters and how environmental groups have put their welfare above that of humans, so Coleman is proposing that we fight fire with fire, pun intended.

I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that it is fraudulent to scare people and governments into placing undue economic burdens on the governed with junk science. If CO2 emissions are adversely altering the climate then those espousing the hypothesis should be required to prove it before new environmental restrictions are imposed. The fact that the AGWers (like Al Gore) won't debate the issue publicly in a televised forum suggests that they think they would lose. Perhaps a lawsuit would force them to come clean, another pun intended.

Brett has alluded to the fact that GW science and politics are intertwined in several on his comments on this blog. If that is true, and it is, then the old aphorism "figures don't lie, but liars figure" is in play and liars can, and should, be prosecuted.
Jim

Maybe legal discovery would force climatologists to cough up the documentation for GCMs, something that is lacking.

Other than that, Mr. Coleman's interview introduced to many people the possibility that Mr. Gore is not acting only out of a moral need to save the planet, that he is financially invested in AGW.

Paul, can you please post this one sir? God bless America and her freedom of speech!

I want to sue Al Gore too!

He needs to be brought up on terrorism charges. He is trying to strike fear throughout the world, by blaming America for the earths "fever". He is a terrorist traitor!

He is creating fear, by dropping bombshells out his portly mouth. And the media just licks it up like lap dogs.

Arafat and Gore. Nobel prize winning "terrorists". What more can I say?

How about this? The earth doesnt have a "fever". It has a cold, or is "cold". Just ask NOAA, RSS, UAH, Hadleys, and NASA GISS. Did WE make that "fever" go away? No! Wake up people. You are being bamboozelled!

Bring on the warmth!

Only happens in the good old USA. Let's get the lawyers involved. I'm sure there are some who are rubbing their hands together in glee, thinking of the fees they'll collect from this case!

My feeling is that the news must have been having a slow day when this announcement about a potential lawsuit came out.

I, for one, welcome such a trial. Like the Kitzmiller Intelligent Design trial in Pennsylvania, it would showcase the science itself, rather than the messenger (Gore). And it would show conclusively that the overwhelming majority of the real scientific evidence is on the side of AGW.

Recall that the Scopes "monkey trial" in the early 20th century was a technical victory for creationism--Scopes was found guilty--but a strategic victory for science, on account of the testimony given during the trial.

I think it would be useful. While I have changed my position on GW, I still have yet to see any evidence that CO2 is the cause. It's pretty sad that in attempting to prove AGW is real and is due to CO2, I cannot find any tests for me to attempt to replicate.

In a court, the proof must be beyond a reasonable doubt, if a warming of +.6 K was a capital offense and CO2 was a person, there is no way that CO2 would get the Death Penalty given the evidence against it.

If someone showed the police a model of you committing a crime, do you think you would be arrested? Well, most of the Gov't is Gov't educated :(

Even with my new position as an AGW advocate, I think we must be diligent in the process of proving CO2's role. With the fact that we are powerful, have huge sums of money backing us, a huge movement backing us, great power in many of the world's governments, shouldn't we wield this power with more responsibility?

With all that we have backing us above, some say the science is settled, I say we really need to nail it down so these deniers have little room to complain. When we finally can say the science is settled is when we can actually prove it rather than just talk about it.

A court case is an easy avenue to get this accomplished. Al Gore will have nothing to worry about if he can prove his claims beyond a reasonable doubt. Having no proof other than models provides reasonable doubt.

We've got our work cut out for us!

Steve

John Coleman , who was fired by his own channel, and has basically been obscure accept for his weather casting, is like all gore. Birds of a feather, flock together. He is looking for notoriety, and respect. After his act over at weather channel I'm sure he wants to redeem his good standing,and reputation. What a clever publicity stunt. Since we don't live on Guantanamo bay,and you could sue Al Gore. Besides if Al Gore is right, than he will be a part of History, a real hero. Just cause you don't like him, doesn't mean you can sue him. This is, a free country. But the whole IPCC Movement should be under the most scrutiny!
KIPP

I'll gladly give up beer and wings for a two weeks and donate the money to sue Al Gore and his ilk.

Kipp,

Correct, just because you don't like him, certainly does not mean that one can sue him.

However, it is unfortunate for those of us who believe in AGW that there are several avenues for lawsuit against individuals or organizations that are promoting cures for an illness that has not been technically verified.

Slander, libel, intent to cause panic for financial gain, fraud. We really need to get our act together if we're going to be able to squash this lawsuit and the numerous ones that are sure to follow.

As Rick pointed out, the deniers are using material from our own playbook, we're going to need a strong defense. I don't see one as of today.

Regards,

Steve

He got thrashed by a UK judge. It would likely be worse in this country.

REPLY: You mean like with his buddy Mr. Hillary? "uh, based on Scottish law, we didn't see the need to to impeach," said Arlen Specter, RINO Sentator from my home state of PA. I am so proud!

Anyway, I think the IPCC should be named in the suit, and I would be a willing participant to jump on the Plaintiff's bandwagon, should this go class action.

Climate skeptics want a lawsuit because they have lost the argument in the scientific literature and in politics. They are soon to lose in the court of public opinion as well. Their only hope is to find a biased judge to see it their way.

A good judge would admit he/she is unqualified to judge scientific issues and rely on authority. In such a case, the judge would undoubtedly side with the IPCC, NAS, AMS, NASA, AGU, Royal Society and every other scientific body that studies the climate.

Just like the Discovery Institute, Coleman et al don't even know how badly they would lose.

I would like to see Al publically defend the 100 plus million he has made from supposed GW and the sale of carbon offsets.
It may be possible that he would have done less damage to our country as the president!

Of course, the standard would be preponderance of the evidence. Al Gore has stated that the warming is well beyond that of natural variability. In what context, geologic time or modern time? Did he say? The facts are inconclusive no matter what JC says. Besides, Al Gore takes his direction from the IPCC so a suit against him would be farsical and one against the IPCC would be without merit. As for carbon credits, it can be argued that they have an ancillary benefit of improving air quality. Simply put, given the inconclusiveness of significant warming from anthropogenic gas, the plaintiff cannot not meet the standard at this time.

Coleman is a bitter old man who still is angry at the fact that he not only got kicked out off TWC, but received no financial reward upon getting kicked out. He wants money and he wants vindication.

And he wants attention.

Wait how is Al Gore a real hero if this is all true? He has a larger carbon footprint than anyone! Buying carbon offsets is a load of crap, if he truly cared, he would not be having so much carbon output that needs the offsets. He is a hypocrite, it is like religion, the offsets were created so people like Al Gore don't look so bad, they are just a cop out.

I don't care if it is true or not, he is not a hero, he is a sham and a manipulater. All he cares about is making money off of this. Once he tried to really lower his output, then he is making a difference. Carbon credits are a cop-out. If he believed what he was saying he would be greener than a sea-sick sailor with grass stains.

This is why I cannot even believe in NCDC data anymore
"U.S. Winter Temperature Highlights

In the contiguous United States, the average winter temperature was 33.2�F (0.6�C), which was 0.2�F (0.1�C) above the 20th century average - yet still ranks as the coolest since 2001. It was the 54th coolest winter since national records began in 1895".

Reply from Paul: I will post the NOAA press release about winter temperatures this weekend or early next week

The headline for this story should read 'Desperate Deniers Look for Salvation in Court!" I mean, who but the radical reactionary fringe really cares what Fox News or John Coleman think about anything? Go ahead and sue. I will love watching a judge belt that one out of the park!

The trial would be a modern day science v. religion clash.

The deniers would have science on their side.
The AGW'rs would be defending their religion.

What a treat.

It was a happy day for this weather watcher when the weather channel came to cable. Now it is virtually useless, but certainly no more so than Al Gore. I believe most people interested in climate and weather have forgotten more than Gore has ever known. His idea that the debate is over is ludicrous and stems from political bias.

Hi KevinAG,

You said - I will love watching a judge belt that one out of the park!

Gore didn't fare so well with the last judge who evaluated his work.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/7037671.stm

A High Court judge who ruled on whether climate change film, An Inconvenient Truth, could be shown in schools said it contains nine scientific "errors".

Coleman is a bitter old man who still is angry at the fact that he ... got kicked out off TWC

Hi Mark,

Gore is a bitter old man who still is angry at the fact that he didn't get to play president.

Yelling fire in a crowded theater has it's consequences. He better hope that things heat up pretty quickly, or the legal lynch mob is going to coalesce. As we can see, it is already starting to form.

Thor Said:

"Of course, the standard would be preponderance of the evidence. "

That is correct, it would be a Civil case. The standard for Criminal Court is beyond a reasonable doubt.

We need to keep in mind that this would be in a Civil Court, different standards apply.

I think it COULD be a good thing, it could get a lot of information from both sides, it could present an equal forum for both sides, which is something this issue has never seen.

I think the AGW people in here are so critical of this idea because they are a little worried it could come to fruition.

Don't worry guys I dont expect you to be like you know, he is right, we are a little worried. I fully expect you to keep your defenses up.

Just mouthing the statement that AGW is a religion and that "deniers would have science on their side" demonstrates again the preposterous nature of the so called denier argument. The truth is it would be just the other way around, with deniers being right up there with creationists. I will take the vast majority of mainline scientists that support AGW over the small number of fringe related psuedo scientists, has-beens and hangers on that populate the denier-virtual world. And some day I'll tell you how I REALLY feel about the subject!

So why should we sue Al Gore? Because he made a movie? Because he is running a business and trying to make money, just like the big oil companies?

If people are stupid enough to believe his movie and stupid enough to give him money for carbon offsets, then they are acting on free will.

Al Gore isn't a scientist. What good would come from suing him? So we could shut him up? What about free speech and letting the science prove him right or wrong?

Scientific study takes time. Oh, I forgot, it's not about science anymore.

"If people are stupid enough to believe his movie and stupid enough to give him money for carbon offsets, then they are acting on free will."

Come on you really don't believe this do you? Free will??? The masses are manipulated by media and by these types of things. It is highly unreasonable for you to expect everyone to be educated properly on this, especially giv