Weather Channel Founder Calls Global Warming A 'Scam'

[McGuff1]

You've heard one side of the story. Here's the other side.

 

 

 

from http://www.nbcaugusta.com/news/national/11114421.html

 

 

 

When John Coleman founded The Weather Channel in the early 1980's, he probably never could have guessed that TWC would be promoting the theory of global warming in the 2000's.

 

 

 

That's because Coleman doesn't believe in global warming, or so-called climate change. In a November 7 blog entry on icecap.us, Coleman makes it clear that he does not oppose environmentalism, but he says that global warming is a "non-event, a manufactured crisis and a total scam."

 

 

 

"I have read dozens of scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct," Coleman wrote.

 

 

 

"The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril."

 

 

 

Coleman believes that in time, the global warming theory will be proven to be a scam when none of the predicted catastrophic events, such as coastal flooding and super storms, actually materialize.

 

 

 

Coleman also criticized CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic party, and even California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, calling them "well informed, but very gullible."

 

 

 

Coleman now works as a broadcast meteorologist at San Diego's KUSI-TV.

 

 

 

The Weather Channel has no comment about Coleman, other than to say that he left the network in 1983.

 

 

 

Some more information on this topic is available on http://www.icecap.us/

[BlueTear]

... a TV anchorman meterologist gone TV-channel founder said it, it MUST be true!

[Defender2516]

... a TV anchorman meterologist gone TV-channel founder said it, it MUST be true!

 

 

 

BlueTear is using sacrasm to express that he knows more than a TV-channel founder.. IT MUST BE TRUE!

[Mercifull]

... a TV anchorman meterologist gone TV-channel founder said it, it MUST be true!

 

 

 

BlueTear is using sacrasm to express that he knows more than a TV-channel founder.. IT MUST BE TRUE!

No he's just saying that his credentials don't make him right. See the topic on the nobel prize winning geneticist who said black people are less intelligent.

[BlueTear]

BlueTear is using sacrasm to express that he knows more than a TV-channel founder.. IT MUST BE TRUE!

Ah, it appears I have once again failed to adapt my posting to my audience by making it too subtle. I shall strive to correct my error (Starting with ensuring that I don't make this particular veiled insult too veiled);

 

 

 

Suggesting that having founded the weather channel (of all things) makes your conclusions in the area of climate research - after having read DOZENS of reports, no less - more accurate than, say, an international panel of 2000 scientiests reading way more than DOZENS of reports, is wrong. I'd even stretch to refering to it as downright silly, along the lines of "SOME GUY ON TV SAID IT, IT MUST BE TRUE!".

 

 

 

Some random guy who happends to have presented weather on the TV and founded a TV channel says something. I fail to see how this is in any way, shape or form, qualifies as a "second opinion" to the official statements made by the IPCC, and find any attempt to equal the two to be laughable at best.

 

 

 

 

 

Cue Warriors's excellent post on climate changes, that people keep ignoring because reading it over and grasping the facts it contains is a lot less easy than to believe what's being said on TV. Or by a guy who makes TV.

[dsavi]

I hate to say it, but these global warming threads are getting boring.

 

As for the 'scam' part; Reported. :D

[McGuff1]

As I said it's good to hear both sides of the story and make up your own mind.

 

 

 

I encourage you to at least look at some of the information on sites like this before hiding under your bed and waiting for the end of the earth as you have been told by some.

 

 

 

http://www.icecap.us/

 

 

 

And did you know from http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/op ... 1641212007

 

THERE is a beautiful congruency about Al Gore receiving the Nobel Peace Prize 24 hours after a High Court judge had declared it illegal to screen his 'man-made' climate change propaganda film An Inconvenient Truth in schools, unless accompanied by contradictory information to correct its scientific falsehoods. The judge identified nine scientific errors that would mislead pupils.

[Rebdragon]

"I have read dozens of scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct," Coleman wrote.

 

:lol:

[Animaslayer]

... a TV anchorman meterologist gone TV-channel founder said it, it MUST be true!

 

 

 

since when are weathermen right??

 

 

 

today calls for bright sunshine and no clouds

 

 

 

you walk to the window and stay there all day looking at clouds and rain

[Defender2516]

BlueTear is using sacrasm to express that he knows more than a TV-channel founder.. IT MUST BE TRUE!

Ah, it appears I have once again failed to adapt my posting to my audience by making it too subtle. I shall strive to correct my error (Starting with ensuring that I don't make this particular veiled insult too veiled);

 

 

 

Suggesting that having founded the weather channel (of all things) makes your conclusions in the area of climate research - after having read DOZENS of reports, no less - more accurate than, say, an international panel of 2000 scientiests reading way more than DOZENS of reports, is wrong. I'd even stretch to refering to it as downright silly, along the lines of "SOME GUY ON TV SAID IT, IT MUST BE TRUE!".

 

 

 

Some random guy who happends to have presented weather on the TV and founded a TV channel says something. I fail to see how this is in any way, shape or form, qualifies as a "second opinion" to the official statements made by the IPCC, and find any attempt to equal the two to be laughable at best.

 

 

 

 

 

Cue Warriors's excellent post on climate changes, that people keep ignoring because reading it over and grasping the facts it contains is a lot less easy than to believe what's being said on TV. Or by a guy who makes TV.

 

 

 

I stand corrected. Thanks for clearing that up.

[McGuff1]

Like to watch You Tube videos?

 

 

 

[Ginger_Warrior]

I personally can't actually see anything in that statement where he catagorically denies the human impact on Global Warming.

 

 

 

He's hardly on the side of Bush and the like who believe Global Warming doesn't actually exist, and even if it did, it's not down to humans...

 

 

 

TBH, I see someone looking for a bit of fame by jumping on the conservatives' band-wagon. :|

[Medellin]

the sky is falling :ohnoes:

 

 

 

 

 

:roll: :lol:

[sebbeberg]

I told you.

[McGuff1]

He's hardly on the side of Bush and the like who believe Global Warming doesn't actually exist, and even if it did, it's not down to humans

 

Ok maybe you can explain how humans caused Global warming on Mars?

 

 

 

Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says

 

 

 

Global warming hits Mars too: study

 

 

 

Or just Google "Global Warming Myths" and you'll have plenty else to think about.

[Barihawk]

I personally can't actually see anything in that statement where he catagorically denies the human impact on Global Warming.

 

 

 

He's hardly on the side of Bush and the like who believe Global Warming doesn't actually exist, and even if it did, it's not down to humans...

 

 

 

TBH, I see someone looking for a bit of fame by jumping on the conservatives' band-wagon. :|

 

 

 

Why are Conservatives automatically labeled as anti-environmentalist?

 

 

 

Bush is pushing for reduction of fossil fuels by 2050. Why? So we reduce pollution and save money.

 

 

 

I'm starting to get sick of your gross overgeneralization of the Conservatives.

[BlueTear]

Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says

 

 

 

Global warming hits Mars too: study

 

 

 

Or just Google "Global Warming Myths" and you'll have plenty else to think about.

Direct quote from the second article you linked to, regarding why Mars is heating up;

 

 

 

"The explanation is in the dirt. "

 

 

 

Our global warming is hardly making Mars heat up, but then again, I doubt Martian dust storms is making Earth heating up.

[henman888]

I don't think global warming is a myth.

 

Why?

 

People on earth are polluting and you know the rest...

 

Humans do make an impact.

 

Carbon Dioxide is bad, Carbon Monoxide is also bad and other gases.

 

Too much of these gases will cause difficult breathing.

 

The ozone layer is also at risk.

 

because there is already a hole in it.

 

Humans are ruining the planet and forests and other green place are being turned into deserts.

 

Deserts are basically useless because you can't make a farm on it or do other things. Deserts are growing bigger.

 

There is already deserts in the USA and they will grow.

 

 

 

(That was a lot)

[Will H]

Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says

 

 

 

Global warming hits Mars too: study

 

 

 

Or just Google "Global Warming Myths" and you'll have plenty else to think about.

Direct quote from the second article you linked to, regarding why Mars is heating up;

 

 

 

"The explanation is in the dirt. "

 

 

 

Our global warming is hardly making Mars heat up, but then again, I doubt Martian dust storms is making Earth heating up.

 

 

 

:wall:

 

You aren't getting it. Dust storms on mars are causing 'martian warming', which are completely proven to be non-human related (Due to the lack of humans on mars). Therefore it is proven that global warming can happen without human interference, which suggests that the earth may be undergoing the same effect because the results are proportional (Mars is closer to the sun and is heating up rapidly, Earth is further away but is still heating up, albeit slower).

 

 

 

However, I think that it is now completely impossible to pinpoint the cause of global warming because both sides have valid evidence, and the whole conspiracy theory is too complex to unravel. My question is; why are we arguing amongst each other trying to point the blame? Aren't we supposed to be getting on with inventing fuel which doesn't need crude oil to function, which will run out in the next 50 years? Let's face it, we can't control global warming, we just need to adapt to it until it passes. We may be able to control the CO2, but we need to get our act together in that area anyway. Crude Oil is running out, so let's do something about it.

[epeeflecher]

See the topic on the nobel prize winning geneticist who said black people are less intelligent.

 

 

 

Lol. Never saw that before.

[Iv_Green_vI]

Can't people face the fact that Global Warming is true.

[Ragen]

Mars is closer to the sun and is heating up rapidly, Earth is further away but is still heating up, albeit slower).

 

 

 

:D

 

 

 

Personally, I don't think we can come to a conclusion about who's fault it is. I believe we played a role in it and either way it's a bit late to try and start cutting down on emissions. According to one of my science teachers (I trust them slightly less than Wikipedia), even stopping all carbon dioxide emissions everywhere the Ice caps would still have melted by the end of the century - the damage is done. Apparently, I don't have the time to be doing extra research on top of a load of maths c/w I should be doing instead of typing this.

[malo2]

I'm not the person to flat out say that global warming is all a hoax, but I'm very glad that there are more and more people not following the global warming bandwagon.

 

 

 

Can't people face the fact that Global Warming is true.

can't people just face the fact that not everything everybody listens to is true?

[assassin_696]

I personally can't actually see anything in that statement where he catagorically denies the human impact on Global Warming.

 

 

 

He's hardly on the side of Bush and the like who believe Global Warming doesn't actually exist, and even if it did, it's not down to humans...

 

 

 

TBH, I see someone looking for a bit of fame by jumping on the conservatives' band-wagon. :|

 

 

 

Why are Conservatives automatically labeled as anti-environmentalist?

 

 

 

Bush is pushing for reduction of fossil fuels by 2050. Why? So we reduce pollution and save money.

 

 

 

I'm starting to get sick of your gross overgeneralization of the Conservatives.

 

 

 

I don't really think that conservatives/republicans are anti-environmentalist, it's just that it's hard for any party that fiscally believes in a more free market system to try and provide sufficient profit incentives to make companies more environmental. It's an economic problem, rarely one of lack of care for the environment.

 

 

 

You might find this interesting

 

 

 

Most economists are also enthusiastic environmentalists. Why? Because standard economic theory automatically predisposes those who believe in it to favour strong environmental protection.

 

 

 

Economists generally believe that a system of free markets is a pretty efficient way to run an economy as long as the prices are right - in particular, as long as people pay the true social cost of their actions. Environmental issues, however, more or less by definition involve situations in which the price is wrong - in which the private costs of an activity fail to reflect its true social costs.

 

 

 

Global warming, economically, is a problem of externalities, but it's certainly not beyond the free market to handle, it just requires the price to be adjusted accordingly.

[Barihawk]

At least you back up what you say, Assassin.