Weather Channel Founder Blast Network

[the iron horse]

Weather Channel Founder Blasts Network; Claims It Is 'Telling Us What to Think'
TWC founder and global warming skeptic advocates suing Al Gore to expose 'the fraud of global warming.'

By Jeff Poor
Business & Media Institute
3/3/2008 6:11:04 PM

The Weather Channel has lost its way, according to John Coleman, who founded the channel in 1982.

Coleman told an audience at the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change on March 3 in New York that he is highly critical of global warming alarmism.

“The Weather Channel had great promise, and that’s all gone now because they’ve made every mistake in the book on what they’ve done and how they’ve done it and it’s very sad,” Coleman said. “It’s now for sale and there’s a new owner of The Weather Channel will be announced – several billion dollars having changed hands in the near future. Let’s hope the new owners can recapture the vision and stop reporting the traffic, telling us what to think and start giving us useful weather information.”

The Weather Channel has been an outlet for global warming alarmism. In December 2006, The Weather Channel’s Heidi Cullen argued on her blog that weathercasters who had doubts about human influence on global warming should be punished with decertification by the American Meteorological Society.



Coleman also told the audience his strategy for exposing what he called “the fraud of global warming.” He advocated suing those who sell carbon credits, which would force global warming alarmists to give a more honest account of the policies they propose.



“ have a feeling this is the opening,” Coleman said. “If the lawyers will take the case – sue the people who sell carbon credits. That includes Al Gore. That lawsuit would get so much publicity, so much media attention. And as the experts went to the media stand to testify, I feel like that could become the vehicle to finally put some light on the fraud of global warming.”


Earlier at the conference Lord Christopher Monckton, a policy adviser to former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, told an audience that the science will eventually prevail and the “scare” of global warming will go away. He also said the courts were a good avenue to show the science.


Stuart James and Paul Detrick also contributed to this report.
http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20080303175301.aspx

 

[BVS]

Suing Gore? WTF?

What an idiot.

I'm glad he's selling the network, maybe it won't fall in the hands of another science denier.

 

[MadelynIris]

He sold the network a long time ago I believe. He's got a degree in meterology from University of Illinois, and has been a meteorologist since 1953. I'd say he's been around the block with this stuff at least.

So, although not a climatologist, at least he understands the 24-48 hour outlook.

I took both meteorology and climatology in college, and used to work for NOAA. Most of the meterologist I knew do not believe we (humans) are contributing to global warming, because the planet has gone through huge climatalogical changes in history, some for known, and not so known reasons (all mostly guesses).

So, yeah, we can theorize it's carbon dioxide, and we can probably have some control over it, I agree. Let's be aware... let's control it. But if the planet is going to get cold over the next 1000 years, it's going to get cold. Hot, yes, it will get hot.

The best thing we can do, is become more aware... which is exactly what is happening with the whole global warming scare.

 

[BVS]

So, yeah, we can theorize it's carbon dioxide, and we can probably have some control over it, I agree. Let's be aware... let's control it. But if the planet is going to get cold over the next 1000 years, it's going to get cold. Hot, yes, it will get hot.

And this alone makes his suing Gore ridiculous.

 

[MadelynIris]

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

BVS, this site is good. He has a real balance look at it, and some awesome quotes:

"In the long run, the replacement of the precise and disciplined language of science by the misleading language of litigation and advocacy may be one of the more important sources of damage to society incurred in the current debate over global warming."


Dr. Richard S. Lindzen
(leading climate and atmospheric science expert- MIT) (3)








"Researchers pound the global-warming drum because they know there is politics and, therefore, money behind it. . . I've been critical of global warming and am persona non grata."


Dr. William Gray
(Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado and leading expert of hurricane prediction )
(in an interview for the Denver Rocky Mountain News, November 28, 1999)







"Scientists who want to attract attention to themselves, who want to attract great funding to themselves, have to (find a) way to scare the public . . . and this you can achieve only by making things bigger and more dangerous than they really are."


Petr Chylek
(Professor of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia)
Commenting on reports by other researchers that Greenland's glaciers are melting.
(Halifax Chronicle-Herald, August 22, 2001) (8)







"Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing -- in terms of economic policy and environmental policy."


Tim Wirth , while U.S. Senator, Colorado.
After a short stint as United Nations Under-Secretary for Global Affairs (4)
he now serves as President, U.N. Foundation, created by Ted Turner and his $1 billion "gift"







"No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits.... Climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world."


Christine Stewart, Minister of the Environment of Canada
recent quote from the Calgary Herald

 

[financeguy]

I know this is the classic example of misconstruing from small sample sizes.......but round my way, it's pretty f****** cold for March.

 

[melon]

Weather Channel Founder Blasts Network; Claims It Is 'Telling Us What to Think'

Yes, how dare it tell us it's 35 degrees, partly cloudy, with a 60% chance of rain. I have every right to believe it's 75 degrees, sunny, with a 10% chance of rain!

 

[melon]

I know this is the classic example of misconstruing from small sample sizes.......but round my way, it's pretty f****** cold for March.

Just to note, most scientists think that "global warming" is a misnomer; it should be called "climate change." In many climate change models, some areas get shorter, more intense/colder winters--but that is usually from the cold air that should be resident primarily in the north polar region being pushed further south than it should be--i.e., climate change.

 

[INDY500]

Just to note, most scientists think that "global warming" is a misnomer; it should be called "climate change." In many climate change models, some areas get shorter, more intense/colder winters--but that is usually from the cold air that should be resident primarily in the north polar region being pushed further south than it should be--i.e., climate change.

The switch in terminology is no accident.
Global warming alarmists have realized that it's much easier to defend a hypothesis supported by anecdotal evidence "The weather is getting more extreme and is changing" than one that requires scientific evidence "The planet is warming significantly because of the activities of humans."

When your theory supports heat waves and blizzards, droughts and floods, warming and cooling; it makes things, shall we say... less complicated.

 

[melon]

The switch in terminology is no accident.
Global warming alarmists have realized that it's much easier to defend a hypothesis supported by anecdotal evidence "The weather is getting more extreme and is changing" than one that requires scientific evidence "The planet is warming significantly because of the activities of humans."

When your theory supports heat waves and blizzards, droughts and floods, warming and cooling; it makes things, shall we say... less complicated.

All things should be supported by the facts and by science, and climate change has been studied and should be continued to be studied.

However, it should also be noted that a lot of the solutions given by climate change supporters--energy independence, greater efficiency, etc.--are also solutions supported by neo-cons, but for a completely different reason. That is, our solutions to climate change are also solutions to a lot of our global national security problems.

At this point, let's let the liberals think that they're cleaning up the world and the conservatives think that they're protecting it and move forward with these solutions.

 

[the iron horse]

Scientists meet in NYC
to challenge Gore, U.N.
Hundreds of experts assert 'alarmists'
in climate debate 'have had their say


NEW YORK – Global warming is a natural process, not likely the result of human activities, argued more than 100 internationally prominent environmental scientists in papers presented at the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change, which concluded here today.

The conference, organized by the Heartland Institute, sought to refute the contention promoted by Al Gore and the U.N. that there is an "established scientific consensus" that human beings are causing the earth to warm catastrophically. The event attracted more than 500 people, including scientists, economists, policy experts and members of the public from around the world.

"The purpose of the conference is to provide a platform for the hundreds of scientists, economists, and policy experts who dissent from the so-called 'consensus' on global warming," said Joseph Bast, president of the Chicago-based Heartland Institute. "This is their chance to speak out."

"Is global warming 'An Inconvenient Truth,' as Vice President Al Gore charges, or a 'Global Warming Swindle?' Harriet Johnson, spokeswoman for the Heartland Institute asked in a statement distributed at the start of the three-day conference.

"The alarmists in the global warming debate have had their say – over and over again, in every newspaper in the country practically every day and in countless news reports and documentary films," a notice on the Heartland Institute website proclaims. "But they have lost the debate."

Environmental scientist S. Fred Singer kicked off the conference by releasing a report entitled, "Nature, Not Human Activity Rules the Climate," summarizing a three-year international scientific research project conducted by the Nongovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or NIPCC, that Singer headed.

"There are many factors that affect the climate," Singer told WND. "What we can now exclude by scientific evidence is the argument that greenhouse gases are an important factor in causing global warming."

Singer and the NIPCC agree that global warming occurred in the 20th century, but disagree human activity is responsible. He argues instead that natural causes are likely to be the dominant cause of the scientifically observed global warming under discussion.

The NIPCC scientists contend the U.N. agenda "is largely hypothetical and not sustained by observations" driven by complex mathematical models.

The computer models, the NIPCC scientists claim, are only valid in a "virtual computer world," but fail to produce reliable real world predictions that can be empirically verified.

"Computer models undoubtedly have their place as a way of projecting possible consequences when one or more variables are changed," the NIPCC scientists wrote in their newly released report. "However, models do not represent reality, yet the IPCC persists in treating them as if they do."

The newly released NIPCC report presents scientific evidence that solar-wind variability is a primary cause of climate change, a better explanation for 20th century warming than greenhouse gas effects.

Moreover, the NIPCC report argues the IPCC's estimates of future human-generated carbon dioxide emissions are too high and the higher concentrations of carbon dioxide that can be attributed to human activity have been beneficial to plant and animal life.

"Global warming is attributable to natural causes," Singer told WND, "so in that sense global warming is unstoppable, regardless what measures Al Gore or the U.N. want to impose on us with new international governmental regulations."

"Unstoppable Global Warming – Every 1,500 Years" is the title of Singer's New York Times best-selling book, co-authored with Hudson Institute scientist Dennis T. Avery.

Examining geological and historical data, Singer and Avery claim to have established a 1,500 year-cycle that generates warming and cooling of the earth's atmosphere, regardless of the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases.

The NIPCC report issued at the New York City conference was written to counter the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, a scientific panel established in 1988 by the U.N. to evaluate the risk of climate change.

The IPCC and Gore and the won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for efforts to disseminate their theory about man-made climate change.

The IPCC released a report Nov. 17 in Valencia, Spain, entitled, "Climate Change 2007," arguing "much of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG (greenhouse gas) concentrations."

The U.N. has utilized the IPCC to launch an aggressive agenda, largely supporting the Kyoto Protocol, calling for the establishment of a global response to climate change.

At the core of the U.N. agenda is an array of recommended governmental policies designed to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, including the creation an international carbon market that imposes economic penalties for non-compliance.

"Al Gore and the U.N. have a fixation with the argument that we cause global warming," Singer said. "Besides that, look at the billions of tax dollars going into various schemes like subsidizing biofuels. We're being charged twice by the global warming alarmists – once in new taxes the U.N. is planning to impose on us and then again as consumers who will ultimately have to bear the cost of these new global taxes."

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=58024

 

[Irvine511]

you're right.

people: everything's fine. continue not to modify your behavior. continue to consume resources at their present rates. continue to live as if nothing you do, eat, consume, or poop will ever affect anything else. it is your blessed way of life, and the earth thanks you for it.

thank you.

please continue to wash all your clothes in hot water, drive everywhere you please, and support candidates who see nothing wrong with establishing an American Empire in Mesopotamia so that you can continue to enjoy the comparatively luxurious $3.00-ish a gallon.

 

[the iron horse]

you're right.

people: everything's fine. continue not to modify your behavior. continue to consume resources at their present rates. continue to live as if nothing you do, eat, consume, or poop will ever affect anything else. it is your blessed way of life, and the earth thanks you for it.

thank you.

please continue to wash all your clothes in hot water, drive everywhere you please, and support candidates who see nothing wrong with establishing an American Empire in Mesopotamia so that you can continue to enjoy the comparatively luxurious $3.00-ish a gallon.

Irvine511,

I guess you are directing your post to me.

A few hours ago I carried our trash to our local recycling center:

-glass
-plastic
-cans
-paper

I placed them all in the bins.

We wash in cold water.

We use our car only when needed. We avoid unnecessary trips.
I am currently looking for a small motorcycle to commute to work.

We live on a small farm and try to grow a lot of food on our own.

We are trying to be as frugal as we can.


My threads on this issue are only about presenting information.


The earth, I think, is doing just fine.
We need to lighten up, and enjoy the beauty and wonder.

And do what we can to help keep it that way.

 

[Irvine511]

your lifestyle sounds very eco-friendly.

posting articles that assuage guilt and skirt the facts don't jive with that.

 

[INDY500]

Mmmmmmm, exhaust fumes.

 

[Irvine511]

Mmmmmmm, exhaust fumes.

this is Why We Fight.