Sueing Al Gore for fraud will prove this one way or the other??

Pretty questionable reasoning for someone bright enough to come up with the weather channel concept.

What's the picture here, a group of jurors will listen to paid "scientists" on each side and make a decision?

These learned jurors will be deciding what no consensus of scientists have yet agreed upon.

Maybe Mr Coleman has a group of lawyers in his family. It will probably cost Gore a great deal of money to defend himself needlessly.

Perhaps the point is that it can't be proved one way or the other. The lawsuit might not be to decide how much of an impact man has on global warming this time. It might be that it can't be proven, yet Gore and many others make it sound like there is a consensus (as do many of those on the opposite side).

Is Gore deliberately manipulating people, tweaking the facts, in order to gain benefit. In other words is he acting as a fraud, is it all a con game.

Perhaps the lawsuit can lay the groundwork and set a precedent to stop the billions of dollars being spent on a idea that has not been proven and doesn't even have a consensus of scientists who believe that Man is or isn't the primary cause of global warming

Whether such questions should be decided in a civil court room is another matter. Whether there is cause to single out Gore is another legal question.

None of us have the answer to whether global warming is real or not. But somehow the question seems to have been twisted, particularly by those who don't want to accept the concept,
from not whether the warming is happening but rather as to whether man has caused it.

The real questions should be is it happening and can we do something about it if it is.

All the posturing and accusations are irrelevant.
A law suit against a very visible man who believes it to be true is pure stupidity and will not accomplish anything helpful to establishing the truth of the issue.