Frank Bi suggests on open letter to John Coleman, Christopher Monckton, and Owen McShane, who have been threatening to sue Al Gore and James Hansen challenging them to bring it on.
More like this
Monckton tells Glenn Beck how he organised the lawsuit against An Inconvenient Truth:
What happened is that I looked at Al Gore's movie with mounting horror and I identified three dozen scientific errors in it. So I had a weather mate of mine who takes an interest in these matters and also had the…
You can now sign the "Sue Us" peition, which calls for those people who keep threatening to Sue Gore and Hansen to do so. See also Frank Bi's post on promoting the petition.
Graham Readfearn writes about how Monckton is threatening the sue the ABC because he didn't like Wendy Carlisle's Background Briefing episode. This isn't really that interesting, Monckton has also threatened to sue Al Gore, John Abraham, Scott Mandia, The Guardian, as well threatening to jail…
Christopher Monckton and George Monbiot have an exchange in the Guardian and William Connolley is not impressed.
Today's grauniad has a piece by Monckton, "This wasn't gibberish. I got my facts right on global warming". Its in the "response" column, where people get a chance to reply. Sadly its all…
Err..
Is it not up to us to take the challenge to them? Lest they refuse the head to head, as I suspect they would. At, say £5 a head, we could accuse them of telling egregious lies in a court of law. Assuming that was provable, would it work?
douglas clark:
No reason why we can't do both. :) Also it seems that the only way that Coleman et al. will be challenged in court is if Gore and/or Hansen personally brings on legal proceedings against them (though I may be wrong). And neither Gore nor Hansen seems inclined to take this course of action at the moment.
I see no point in inviting these people into a court of law. It only gives these attention-seekers the public platform they crave, and the opportunity to posture, claim martyrdom or vindication if or when a turgid judgement is produced. Why would anyone risk sharing space or a photograph with these frauds?
> I see no point in inviting these people into a court of law.
For what it's worth, I'm guessing that the inactivists won't take up the invitation. It's simply cheaper for them to do what they're now doing.
A petition with some dozens (if ever) signatures. Wow, what a tectonic event.
Beware of the inactivists anyhow. If a handful of them is capable of derailing the Kyoto protocol, keeping at bay emission reductions, harming the "overwhelming consensus" and sowing doubt in the public opinion, they may even win in a court when rational things are brought to the table.
So insted of making a bragging petition, you might be well advised to look at the outcome of some previous judgments (lorry driver versus Gore and Bard & 35 "eminent" scientists versus C4).
> they may even win in a court when rational things are brought to the table.
The High Respectable Inactionosphere has nothing to offer but distractions at the peripheries. When it comes to real debates in the venues where they really matter, they're more chicken than Chicken Little can ever hope to be.
The petition's now up and running, so everyone who wants to sign it can go sign it now. :-B
(I'm also trying to look into how to enhance the petition's credibility...)