He figures it is the only way to really get a healthy debate on record.
"Is he committing financial fraud? That is the question," Coleman said.I bring it to your attention since there is little to zero reporting of this issue or litigation in the popular press. He continues:"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."
Interesting development - throwing such things as facts, figures, and observable scientific data into a debate that will surely turn him to a social pariah. However, his reasoning is that due to Gore's "baloney" it's messing up his product of accurate weather prediction that people depend on to live their lives."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."
No comments:
Post a Comment