[blindlaw] 'environmental zelots'; - Possible Legal Suit

Sat Mar 15 14:42:29 CDT 2008

Very scientific.  When someone disagrees with you, just call them liars and
accuse them of fraud.  Whatever the merits of the global warming case, or
lack thereof, I don't believe for a minute that a group of scientists is out
to scam the public deliberately.  Name-calling has no place in a scientific
debate.  The lawsuit this guy proposes is frivolous; a difference of opinion
about something is not the same thing as intentionally lying about it.

Chris

-----Original Message-----
From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
Behalf Of Craig Borne
Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2008 12:23 PM
To: 'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'
Subject: Re: [blindlaw] 'environmental zelots'; - Possible Legal Suit

Here is an article that ties this issue into this list serve.  The founder
of the Weather Channel is seeking to settle the global warming issue in a
court of law.
Craig

FOXNews.com - Weather Channel Founder: Sue Al Gore for Fraud - Science News
| Science & Technology | Technology News
FOXNews.com

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."

• Click here to visit FOXNews.com's Natural Science Center.

Coleman spoke to FOXNews.com after his appearance last week at the 2008
International Conference on Climate Change in New York, where he called
global warming a scam and lambasted the cable network he helped create.

"You want to tune to the Weather Channel and have them tell you how to live
your life?" Coleman said. "Come on."

He laments the network's decision to focus on traffic and lifestyle reports
over the weather.

"It's very clear that they don't realize that weather is the most
significant impact in every human being's daily life, and good, solid,
up-to-the-minute weather information and meaningful forecasts presented in
such a way that people find them understandable and enjoyable can have a
significant impact,"
he said.

"The more you cloud that up with other baloney, the weaker the product," he
said.

Coleman has long been a skeptic of global warming, and carbon dioxide is the
linchpin to his argument.

"Does carbon dioxide cause a warming of the atmosphere? The proponents of
global warming pin their whole piece on that," he said.

The compound carbon dioxide makes up only 38 out of every 100,000 particles
in the atmosphere, he said.

"That's about twice as what there were in the atmosphere in the time we
started burning fossil fuels, so it's gone up, but it's still a tiny
compound,"
Coleman said. "So how can that tiny trace compound have such a significant
effect on temperature?

"My position is it can't," he continued. "It doesn't, and the whole case for
global warming is based on a fallacy."

Craig Borne
Baltimore, Maryland
cjborne at comcast.net

-----Original Message-----
From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
Behalf Of Craig Borne
Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2008 12:14 PM
To: 'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'
Subject: Re: [blindlaw] 'environmental zelots'; Second Article

Here is another article discussing the flawed methodology in the U.N. Global
Warming Committee's reports.  
Craig

This is a printer friendly version of an article from
www.washingtontimes.com To print this article open the file menu and choose
Print.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

Article published Mar 14, 2008
COMMENTARY/Climate panel on the hot seat

March 14, 2008
By H. Sterling Burnett - More than 20 years ago, climate scientists began to
raise alarms over the possibility global temperatures were rising due to
human activities, such as deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels. 

To better understand this potential threat, the World Meteorological
Organization and the United Nations created the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988 to provide a "comprehensive, objective,
scientific, technical and socioeconomic assessment of human-caused climate
change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation." 

IPCC reports have predicted average world temperatures will increase
dramatically, leading to the spread of tropical diseases, severe drought,
the rapid melting of the world's glaciers and ice caps, and rising sea
levels.
However, several assessments of the IPCC's work have shown the techniques
and methods used to derive its climate predictions are fundamentally flawed.

In a 2001 report, the IPCC published an image commonly referred to as the
"hockey stick." This graph showed relatively stable temperatures from A.D.
1000
to 1900, with temperatures rising steeply from 1900 to 2000. The IPCC and
public figures, such as former Vice President Al Gore, have used the hockey
stick to support the conclusion that human energy use over the last 100
years has caused unprecedented rise global warming. 

However, several studies cast doubt on the accuracy of the hockey stick, and
in 2006 Congress requested an independent analysis of it. A panel of
statisticians chaired by Edward J. Wegman, of George Mason University, found
significant problems with the methods of statistical analysis used by the
researchers and with the IPCC's peer review process. For example, the
researchers who created the hockey stick used the wrong time scale to
establish the mean temperature to compare with recorded temperatures of the
last century. Because the mean temperature was low, the recent temperature
rise seemed unusual and dramatic.
This error was not discovered in part because statisticians were never
consulted. 

Furthermore, the community of specialists in ancient climates from which the
peer reviewers were drawn was small and many of them had ties to the
original authors — 43 paleoclimatologists had previously coauthored papers
with the lead researcher who constructed the hockey stick. 

These problems led Mr. Wegman's team to conclude that the idea that the
planet is experiencing unprecedented global warming "cannot be supported." 

The IPCC published its Fourth Assessment Report in 2007 predicting global
warming will lead to widespread catastrophe if not mitigated, yet failed to
provide the most basic requirement for effective climate policy: accurate
temperature statistics. A number of weaknesses in the measurements include
the fact temperatures aren't recorded from large areas of the Earth's
surface and many weather stations once in undeveloped areas are now
surrounded by buildings, parking lots and other heat-trapping structures
resulting in an urban-heat-island effect.

Even using accurate temperature data, sound forecasting methods are required
to predict climate change. Over time, forecasting researchers have compiled
140 principles that can be applied to a broad range of disciplines,
including science, sociology, economics and politics. 

In a recent NCPA study, Kesten Green and J. Scott Armstrong used these
principles to audit the climate forecasts in the Fourth Assessment Report.
Messrs.
Green and Armstrong found the IPCC clearly violated 60 of the 127 principles
relevant in assessing the IPCC predictions. Indeed, it could only be clearly
established that the IPCC followed 17 of the more than 127 forecasting
principles critical to making sound predictions. 

A good example of a principle clearly violated is "Make sure forecasts are
independent of politics." Politics shapes the IPCC from beginning to end.
Legislators,
policymakers and/or diplomatic appointees select (or approve) the scientists
— at least the lead scientists — who make up the IPCC. In addition, the
summary and the final draft of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report was
written in collaboration with political appointees and subject to their
approval. 

Sadly, Mr. Green and Mr. Armstrong found no evidence the IPCC was even aware
of the vast literature on scientific forecasting methods, much less applied
the principles. 

The IPCC and its defenders often argue that critics who are not climate
scientists are unqualified to judge the validity of their work. However,
climate predictions rely on methods, data and evidence from other fields of
expertise, including statistical analysis and forecasting. Thus, the work of
the IPCC is open to analysis and criticism from other disciplines. 

The IPCC's policy recommendations are based on flawed statistical analyses
and procedures that violate general forecasting principles. Policymakers
should take this into account before enacting laws to counter global warming
— which economists point out would have severe economic consequences. 

H. Sterling Burnett is a senior fellow with the National Center for Policy
Analysis, a nonpartisan, nonprofit research institute in Dallas. 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

Craig Borne
Baltimore, Maryland
cjborne at comcast.net

-----Original Message-----
From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
Behalf Of Craig Borne
Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2008 12:02 PM
To: 'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'
Subject: Re: [blindlaw] 'environmental zelots'

Hello all,
Not to over-induldge this topic, but several folks asked for citations to
the theory that global warming is not man-caused.  Below is such an article,
and I believe I was sent one more, which I will forward separately.
Craig

3-10-2008
list of 2 items
Print This Article
Forward to a Friend
list end

Scientists Skeptical of Global Warming Alarmism Join Forces 

staff reports

A special video report shows that, in spite of claims to the contrary, there
is no consensus on humans being the driving force behind climate change.

More than 500 climate scientists, meteorologists, economists and others
gathered in New York last week to offer an alternative perspective on
human-induced global warming.

The International Conference on Climate Change, sponsored by The Heartland
Institute, brought together experts from around the world who generally
agree that although the temperature has warmed a bit over the past 100 years
or so, human activity likely is not a significant factor. Instead, they made
a strong case for climate change being an ordinary and well-documented part
of the Earth's history.

Stuart Shepard, digital media director for Focus on the Family Action and a
meteorologist, attended the conference and brought back this video report.

FOR MORE INFORMATION
Read the transcript.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

Craig Borne
Baltimore, Maryland
cjborne at comcast.net
-----Original Message-----
From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
Behalf Of Chris Danielsen
Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2008 8:35 PM
To: 'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'
Subject: Re: [blindlaw] 'environmental zelots'

Craig,

For what it's worth, and with due respect, I think the number of scientists
who disagree with the prevailing theory of global warming is a distinct
minority, not an equal number to that of its proponents.  Also, no one
really disagrees that global warming is occurring, the disagreement is over
what causes it and whether it is a cyclical event driven by climatic factors
that we can't control or a phenomenon caused by factors (namely the emission
of greenhouse gases) that we can.  Finally, it has become fashionable
nowadays to say that anything that is a scientific "theory," such as
evolution or global warming, is by definition not a fact.  But the word
"theory" means something quite different in scientific discussion than it
means in conventional language.  In science, a "theory" is a coherent
explanation of something based on the facts that we know through observation
and study; it is not simply a guess.  Theories may be incomplete, but they
aren't simply made up.  They are based, as you say, often on circumstantial
evidence.  But if circumstantial evidence is enough to put a man to death
(as it often is), it should also be enough to serve as a legitimate template
for a debate about changing environmental policy.

Chris

-----Original Message-----
From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
Behalf Of Craig Borne
Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2008 2:45 PM
To: 'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'
Subject: Re: [blindlaw] 'environmental zelots'

With all due respect, there are an equal number of scientists that view
global warming with suspicion than hail it is a legitimate threat.
Documentaries, such as Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth," are peppered with
inaccuracies but also include some verified truths.
This matter is one of subjective speculation on both sides, but it is in no
way a scientific fact.  Global warming is still a theory, and as such, the
merits of this theory are ripe for discussion and disagreement.  Folks with
a view against global warming should not be categorized as ostriches, just
as proponents of global warming cannot claim a scientific truth with so many
experts in the scientific community not acknowledging its existence.
To bring it back to the purpose of the list, the evidence is circumstantial
at best, not direct.
Craig 

Craig Borne
Baltimore, Maryland
cjborne at comcast.net
-----Original Message-----
From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
Behalf Of ger sadlier
Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2008 1:29 PM
To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org
Subject: Re: [blindlaw] 'environmental zelots'

Hi, I must say that the posts below range from the rediculous to the absurd.

  Describing global warming as a fantacy is equivalent to the austridge
burying his head in the sand.

  Its time the U.S. started to pull its weight on this issue, though it
would have been better had they started 10 years ago.

  In Europe, we have taken serious steps and I can tell you that people are
extremely tired of going the extra mile because the U.S. public are
unwilling or unable to see the writing on the wall.
  (no pun intended given the list.)

  As to the 'quiet car'
  1. at least in the EU such cars aren't so quiet that they are a mennace
  2 some noise making device can be built in if necessary, without leading
to the harmful emissions that currently characterize cars.

  implying that we need the current crop of gas guzzlers to safeguard blind
and visually impaired people is like saying that you need that factory to
keep spewing toxic chemicals so we can smell its existence.

  It really is off the wall.

  G

 Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com 

_______________________________________________
blindlaw mailing list
blindlaw at nfbnet.org
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw

__________ NOD32 2898 (20080223) Information __________

This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com

_______________________________________________
blindlaw mailing list
blindlaw at nfbnet.org
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw

_______________________________________________
blindlaw mailing list
blindlaw at nfbnet.org
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw

_______________________________________________
blindlaw mailing list
blindlaw at nfbnet.org
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw

_______________________________________________
blindlaw mailing list
blindlaw at nfbnet.org
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw

__________ NOD32 2949 (20080315) Information __________

This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com