Interesting suggestion to get the debate in the public forum

"Weather Channel Founder: Sue Al Gore for Fraud" was a headline that got my attention. Seems John Coleman, the founder of The Weather Channel, thinks the only way to get a real, honest debate between actual climate scientists is to sue Al Gore and other global warming alarmists (to include those companies who profit off it through the sale of "carbon credits") for fraud.

"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."

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

Interesting concept, so long as you don't end up in something like the Ninth Circuit, or end up with a activist judge on the case...

The article continues:

"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."

Of course, the global warming alarmists will find some other way to justify their prescription to "fix the climate". Probably blame the cooling on the warming (I've already heard such arguments). I still stand by my belief that the earth's climate is far to complicated to make long-term predictions, as it is far too complex and we have no idea what we don't know that we don't know about it. Heck, the meteorologists have been having trouble accurately predicting how active the hurricane seasons will be, post-Katrina. And, that problem has taken the form of predicting far more activity than has actually developed, resulting in them having to revise downward their predictions for the number of named storms. [Knowing climatologists and meteorologists aren't exactly the same thing, they are related scientific subjects:] If they can't get short-term predictions right, their long-term predictions' accuracy must be called into question.