Friday, March 14, 2008

Weather Channel Founder Wants Honest Debates, Sue Gore

You know what I love about extreme tree-hugging environmentalists? It’s their hypocrisy that I cherish the most.

For years, they have been saying that they want truth and honest debates about global warming but yet viciously attack and belittle anyone who mentions scientific-based research that says that man may not be the cause of alleged Earth warming.

And there are a number of scientific explanations for any change of weather patterns or temperatures, such as increase output from the sun, natural climate patterns to explain the thinning and thickening of polar ice sheets, or how there are no major changes to ocean and weather patterns.

Because there is a lack of debate, it has caused John Coleman, the founder of the Weather Channel, to want to sue former Vice President and “An Inconvenient Truth” star Al Gore in court just so the browbeaten side of global warming can have their side in some type of forum.

“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 told FOXNews.

The biggest question is: Why don’t environmentalists, especially the non-scientists who take Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” as the gospel truth, refuse to see the other side of the issue with open minds? Why isn’t good, scientific debate not being made available and get the same grand media attention that “An Inconvenient Truth” got? Granted, there was some awareness when a British judge blasted Gore’s documentary but there hasn’t been a huge, popular debate about it.

If we truly want people to have a good grasp of what is or isn’t happening to our planet, then they need to know both sides of the issue. And it’s a shame that Coleman has to resort to this type of frustrated hype to get that much-needed spotlight.

And a lot of the doom and gloom spouted by environmentalists are scaring many needlessly without solid evidence to back up their claims.

And if we are going to honestly teach others that there is another, unheard, scientific side to this debate, then they also need to be made aware that there are alarmists and extremists on both sides of this issue, as stated before in The Times Observer. Who can forget that back in the 1970s that scientists were predicting a global cooling in such a terrifying scale that they said by the year 2000 the world would be in the middle of another ice age?

So, let’s drag the one-time presidential hopeful and many of his closed-minded supporters into court and have a real debate about this issue. That way, with both sides presenting their scientific-case findings, the people can truly be the jury of this important global topic.