TWC founder John Coleman to be on CNN this morning – tune in

John Coleman writes on his Facebook page about the CNN “Reliable Sources”  interview to be aired at 11 a.m. ET on Sunday, Nov. 2:

There is another national television interview in my immediate future. An interview with me will be included on the CNN program “Reliable Sources” Sunday morning. The program runs 8 to 9 AM San Diego PST (Did you remember to turn your clocks back last night?). The program starts at 9 AM in the Mountain Time Zone, 10 AM in the Central Time zone and 11 AM in the Eastern Time zone.

The interview was actually recorded on Friday and it was quite an experience, far from just another boring interview. I raised my voice and pointed my fingers quite a bit. How will come off, good or bad? I don’t know. After the experience I wrote an email about to several people including my good, longtime friends Joe D’Aleo. Anthony Watts, Marc Morano and Jim Lakely. I explained about hearing what the host of the program had to say off the air to the CEO of The Weather Channel. It was something not meant for me to hear and it stirred me up more than a little bit.

On the blog “Somewhat Reasonable” Jim Lakely wrote:

John Coleman, the founder of The Weather Channel and a long-time friend of The Heartland Institute, wrote an open letter to UCLA’s Hammer Museum last month, demanding it open up a climate change discussion to the “skeptic” point of view. That letter got a lot of attention, and Coleman has been making the rounds of media outlets this week.

On Monday, he was seen by two million viewers on “The Kelly File” with Megyn Kelly on the Fox News Channel. Later that night, Coleman was a guest on “Coast to Coast AM,” which for decades has been the most popular overnight radio program in North America with three million listeners.

coleman-kelly-file

So tune in to CNN at 11 a.m. ET on Sunday, Nov. 2 to watch Coleman on “Reliable Sources” talk about the media’s complicity in perpetuating an unscientific panic about man’s influence on the climate. Coleman tells us the conversation (taped on Friday for broadcast Sunday morning) focused on The Weather Channel’s response to Coleman’s Monday appearance on “The Kelly File.”

Coleman says the host “didn’t know what hit him,” and, “I assure you, this is not your average TV interview.”

Don’t miss it! Watch CNN’s “Reliable Sources” on Sunday morning.

You can watch all of Coleman’s presentations at Heartland’s international climate conferences here. Follow Coleman on Twitter, and check out his Facebook page.

Advertisements

112 thoughts on “TWC founder John Coleman to be on CNN this morning – tune in

  1. Dr. Watts,
    Could you post a transcript and his comments of what he overheard. Probably the same stuff I have heard for years. I have quite a few converts. Holy Plato.
    I will catch the You tube. I dumped the cable guy and the satellite. Can’t fix stupid. Just turn it off.
    As the solar minimum takes affect with fewer power plants and a weaken grid, the drive by media will drop this man-made stuff like a block of ice.
    Paul

  2. Damm, it will be 2 AM Monday morning when this goes to air in Queensland.
    Hope I can find it on You Tube later.

  3. As one person said on Facebook, I hope they don’t edit your interview to alter what you actually said. It bugs me a bit that they followed up your interview on Coast To Coast, with a UFO abduction story interview.

  4. Is John Colemen a latter day John Henry Faulk?
    Are we seeing the modern day McCarthyism (CAGW) start to crumble?
    Let us hope so for everyone’s sake!

  5. I hope John Coleman brought his own video camera and made his own recording of the interview to keep CNN honest.

  6. I have to thank John Coleman for standing up for truth. I look forward to the interview. With this NH winter already bearing down the CAGW er’s will be spending plenty on heating and snow removal and then we will hear that Catastrophic Climate Change Anthropogenic Global Warming Man Made CO2 did it… oy

  7. I’m dubious about who hit whom. I suspect while Coleman was pencil-jabbing, the host was busy with a machete. But, I’ll watch, with fingers crossed.

  8. CNN’s [opening] advertisement tain’t promising. We have heard John say that climate changes all the time. So their headline lead up to the interview already seems odd and not in line with what John Coleman has been all about.
    “Sunday, November 2
    The co-founder of the Weather Channel insists climate change isn’t real…”

  9. Mr. Coleman’s a hero, but my sense is these things hurt more than they help. Of course they painted him as a crank denier, and the format made it impossible for him to speak in anything but broad brushstrokes. No debate, and tof course hey gave the weather channel CEO the opportunity to speak last, so no rebuttal possible. I’d have advised Mr. Coleman not to do it, though I’m sure I’m in the minority opinion.

    • I do not understand your “hurt more than help” opinion. At this point in the CAGW argument there is no such thing as a silver bullet or one punch knockout. I think Coleman did about as good as could be expected considering the time constraint and the biased hectoring he dealt with from the “moderator”.
      To the casual CNN viewer it must have been quite a surprise to see an articulate and informed Colemen; remember, CNN viewers have bee told all “deniers” are foaming-at-the-mouth troglodytes.

  10. John came out swinging, not letting the CNN reporter frame the discussion. Used his time well. The Reporter and the Weather Channel CEO wanted to create an issue out of John’s statement that he founded the channel. Yet, they say he has nothing to do with it today. Weird argument and off topic. I would like the CEO to show us the data supporting his assertion that extreme weather is greater than ever. Also, wiuld be interesting to hear the content of the sidebar discussion between the CNN reporter and the CEO…sounds juicy.

    • “I would like the CEO to show us the data supporting his assertion that extreme weather is greater than ever.”
      He doesn’t need to, he is fighting a battle of perception and hopes the viewership accepts his word on it. This is the problem in present day media, the so called “journalist” do not have the courage to question someone when they make these types of assertions.

  11. Just watched it. Not really much new here. Coleman and the current Weather Channel CEO were interviewed separately. Coleman was a bit pushy. The CEO suggested they were listening to the science of today and not the science of 30 years ago (a snipe at Coleman’s qualifications). No debate on the science. Coleman called climate science claims “baloney” and “political” referring directly to the Democrats paying scientists to get the answers they want in a closed circle of cash.

    • 30 years ago they didn’t depend on crystal balls …er…. computer models to tell them what they see out the window.

  12. So here is what fired me off…
    The host was talking to the Kenny off of the air before the interview and as I waited in my earpiece I heard the host say that they were doing this segment because Fox had the stupid audacity to put an old, anti-science denier on the air and they wanted to set the record straight and discredit him. Of course, this really got under my skin.
    [Thank you for the courage to speak in public. .mod]

    • What a golden opportunity for FOX news to do an expose on the abject bias in climate science by the MSM as vividly displayed in that comment.
      I think the stockholders of Bain Capital (remember Romney?), The Blackstone Group, and NBC Universal, who own TWC, deserve to know if the CEO supports the statement of the CNN host! He needs to put out a statement on his position as it relates to that comment.
      Words cannot express how prejudice that statement is!
      In no other facet of our country would something like that be tolerated!

    • “..put an old, anti-science denier on the air and they wanted to set the record straight and discredit him.”
      Mr. Coleman,
      This was their obvious agenda, which they made no attempt whatsoever to hide. And I’m sure they wanted you a little angry to aid and abet the “old crank” theme. You did as fine a job as humanly possible under almost impossible conditions. My advice for what it’s worth, would be to insist on an actual debate next time. Otherwise, you don’t have a chance…if your goal is to change…or at least open some minds..

      • Plan B would be to aggressively exploit the fact CAGW proponents will not debate by pointing out that very fact.
        And in addition, remind viewers that it hasn’t warmed in 17+ years, hurricanes and tornado intensity has not increased, and there are twice as many polar bears now as 50 years ago.

    • John:
      And thank you for doing that.
      From what I saw, you gave the moderator much more than he was prepared to handle. I thought the CEO’s response looked timid and generic in comparison. He certainly did not aggressively rebut your points.

    • great!
      and nothing more to say but
      [Thank you for the courage
      to speak in public. .mod]
      Thx – Hans

    • I hate to sound paranoid, but is there a chance that you were MEANT to overhear this exchange, in the hopes of “setting you off”? Maybe, they hoped to get you riled so that you would be emotional and fumble your points? If so, the CNN host is a conniving reprobate. If not, then the host is an absolute twit. Not good alternatives.

  13. Daylight time came to an end last night here in the United States. My phone changed the time. My TV box changed time. My clock changed time. My computer changed time. I changed the clock on the stove and microwave and in my cars. But, I see this morning that WattsUpWithThat still thinks it’s daylight time. LOL

      • True story: when daylight savings time was launched nationally way back in 1964, I had to get up at THREE THIRTY AM to go to school. Normally, it was four thirty am. We had triple sessions at Palo Verde High in Tucson.
        My bus driver and I (I was picked up a 5:00 am so DST made it 4:00 am) went to Phoenix to lobby the legislature to change the laws before I either went insane or died of abuse. I even had a lawyer at this point.
        The legislature listened only after Life Magazine covered my story. Pictures of a girl standing in the desert as coyotes howled at the waning moon moved enough people to change the laws so Arizona was the only state to get rid of DST.
        🙂

  14. John, you should have hit harder on the 97% concensus based on the garbage studies that were debunked.
    Vote on Tuesday folks!
    Taking back control of the Senate is the only way we will be able to turn the USA Titanic before the Democrats hit the iceberg and sink this country.

  15. The central issue isn’t science. It’s policy and the development thereof being based on a science still in its infancy (for example, we still don’t know which models get it right 6 months from now AND 60 years from now in terms of what is driving ENSO conditions). I think John is right to stick with that issue. Sound policy needs sound science. Without sound science, policy development should be tabled. Yet political wonks want to make political lemonade out of still green lemons now rotting from being picked too early. That should be the central discussion, that wisdom with regard to policy making is sorely lacking.

    • Thanks for posting the interview audio. It really made me angry how CNN handled this. The interviewer took up most of the air time and presented the bogus 97% figure as his argument . Still waiting for a MSM outlet to do some true reporting on this subject…

    • I downloaded and listened to John’s talk. I felt he did a great job. His explanation of science “bought and paid” will strike a chord with a lot of people.
      A simplified 15 second explanation is much better than 30 seconds of details, if all you have is 15 seconds. I especially like the way John handled the repeated attempts by the CNN host to interrupt and derail him.

  16. It was pretty tame. Once again CNN had no interest in applying the scientific method to the claims of the alarmists. One can only hope that someone heard the numbers John brought up that is spent only on alarmist “research” and will realize there are much more pressing needs. Nothing was learned which is why Watching CNN is a complete waste of time.

    • I just watched it. You did well, better than most would have.
      I couldn’t help but be amused when the present CEO was talking about people turning to them for the “science”.
      Just a few minutes before I watched the clip I had turned on my TV. I saw some girl talking about how happy she was that her boyfriend had gotten a tattoo.
      I thought I was tuned to some “reality TV” show.
      Then I realized it was The “Weather” Channel.
      John, thanks for what you did.
      Sorry about what they do.
      Your hands are clean.

      • The comment section has some very aggressive CAGW believers tossing about the “97% of scientists agree” and “d*nier”. They could use some actual schooling if anyone has the time…

    • Thanks for the link to the video. I can’t believe CNN actually let you say all that on the air. You presented the case really well and with great passion, bravo. The TWC CEO came off like a smarmy snake oil salesman in my opinion. One thing I noticed was this statement: “I care that the scientists of the world continue to partner with us”. His expression changed noticeably while he was saying it. Do you think he was vaguely alluding to strong arming by the CAGW community, as in TWC will be blackballed by scientists if they don’t toe the CAGW party line?

  17. It was a good rant. Those things often turn into whining about some cluster of sour grapes, but John did a good job of getting 10 minutes of information into a 5 minute slot.
    I’d been a while since I’ve seen a guest cut off the person doing the introduction. (Last time was Richard Stallman taking someone to task for introducing him as a supporter of Open Source software. Rms is a supporter of Free Software, there’s a difference, one very important to rms. He was a lot more blunt.) Sorry, I’m digressing….
    John did a good job replying to the 97% issue. The original 97% (the two question poll) is easy – “I agree too.” The 97% of papers is tough to deal with quickly and still sound believable. Mixing it in with a cogent rant worked pretty well.
    Much more interesting than what-his-name from TWC.

  18. The Algore Effect is in full force this Sunday morning for the viewers in Maine for the Weather Channel CEO David Kenny. His spot was recorded in a studio at Bowdoin College Maine (see the logo on the TV screen capture below.)

    http://i62.tinypic.com/3508pj4.png

    Bowdoin College is in Brunswick, Maine. Brunswick is straight across the Gulf of Maine from Yarmouth, Nova Scotia, Canada. It is Snowing like crazy there this morning & afternoon.

    http://i62.tinypic.com/1zpo4ns.jpg

    The National Weather Service has a Winter Weather Advisory for all of Maine and most of Northern New England.

    Winter Weather Advisory
    URGENT – WINTER WEATHER MESSAGE
    NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE GRAY ME
    1228 PM EST SUN NOV 2 2014
    …EARLY SEASON WINTER STORM TO AFFECT PARTS OF WESTERN MAINE…
    .STRONG LOW PRESSURE DEVELOPING SOUTH OF NANTUCKET ISLAND WILL
    STRENGTHEN AS IT MOVES NORTHEASTWARD TODAY AND TONIGHT. SNOW IS
    EXPECTED TO DEVELOP…THE SNOW MAY BE HEAVY AT TIMES. WINDS WILL
    ALSO BECOME STRONG…AND WILL AID IN REDUCING VISIBILITIES
    FURTHER…AS WELL AS CAUSING POWER OUTAGES.

    MEZ019-020-024-025-030000-
    /O.CON.KGYX.WW.Y.0020.000000T0000Z-141103T0000Z/
    INTERIOR CUMBERLAND-ANDROSCOGGIN-COASTAL CUMBERLAND-SAGADAHOC-
    INCLUDING THE CITIES OF…NORTH WINDHAM…GORHAM…BRIDGTON…
    LEWISTON-AUBURN…LIVERMORE FALLS…PORTLAND…SOUTH PORTLAND…
    WESTBROOK…BATH…TOPSHAM
    1228 PM EST SUN NOV 2 2014
    …WINTER WEATHER ADVISORY REMAINS IN EFFECT UNTIL 7 PM EST THIS
    EVENING…
    * HAZARD TYPES…SNOW AND STRONG WINDS.
    * ACCUMULATIONS…SNOW ACCUMULATION OF 3 TO 5 INCHES…
    * TIMING…RAIN OR A RAIN AND SNOW MIX EARLY THIS MORNING SHOULD
    GIVE WAY TO MAINLY SNOW LATE MORNING AND EARLY AFTERNOON. ANY
    SNOW WILL TAPER OFF AND END BY EARLY EVENING.
    * IMPACTS…SLIPPERY ROADS…ESPECIALLY SECONDARY ONES.
    SCATTERED POWER OUTAGES.
    * WINDS…NORTH 25 TO 30 MPH WITH GUSTS UP TO 40 MPH.
    * TEMPERATURES…IN THE LOWER 30S.
    PRECAUTIONARY/PREPAREDNESS ACTIONS…
    A WINTER WEATHER ADVISORY FOR SNOW MEANS THAT PERIODS OF SNOW
    WILL CAUSE PRIMARILY TRAVEL DIFFICULTIES. BE PREPARED FOR SNOW
    COVERED ROADS AND LIMITED VISIBILITIES…AND USE CAUTION WHILE
    DRIVING.
    &&
    $$

    • You won’t find John Coleman up this way! There are reasons he lives in San Diego.
      I missed out on the snow here close to Concord NH, the precip is too far east, but we have the wind and wind chill.

  19. Coleman is about as qualified to discuss the scientific merits of climate change as is Pat Sajak.
    The guy is a businessman, not a scientist … which certainly explains why News Corp would regard him as a climate change expert.
    REPLY: Let me tell you, “labman57” aka anonymous coward, that I’m 110% certain that not only are you a coward, who has not the integrity to put his own name to his words, but a complete idiot too.
    Your opinion is noted, and ignored. Feel free to be as upset as you wish and don’t let the door hit your butt on the way out. – Anthony Watts

    • labman57,
      Your ignorance is on display here.
      John Coleman has been on the right side of the debate — the correct side — all along.
      And you? What have you added, beside your content-free, ad hominem attack?

      • @dbstealey..

        Neither “side” is correct.
        Science only has one side, namely the truth.
        Stop confusing politics with science.

      • juan,
        How could you conclude that from what I wrote? I simply pointed out that labman57’s comment was ad-hom. So why aren’t you ragging on him instead?
        I also pointed out that John Coleman is on the ‘correct’ side, meaning that science has validated his views.

      • @dbstealey

        Speaking of “ad-homs” isn’t the use of the words “coward” and “idiot” directed at a commenter consider to be an “ad-hom?”

      • juan,
        It is impossible trying to keep you on one subject. As soon as I tell you something you are off on another tangent.
        All I said was that labman was ignorant, which I think is a fact; truth is a defense, no? Anyway, that’s how I see it. I didn’t use the other terms, so that’s one more tangent…

      • @dbstealey

        “truth is a defense, no? ”

        Your opinion is not “truth”….so to answer your question, no, stating your opinion does not make your ad-hominem acceptable.

    • Mr labman57
      ..
      Mr. John Coleman earned a degree in journalism from the University of Illinois.
      ..
      Unlike Willard, at least he successfully graduated from college.

    • Lab man:
      These environmental scams are easy to spot, and global warming is the biggest environmental scam of all. Tell us about the so-called “pause”, and then tell us about how the globe is still warming.
      Your “consensus” is me-e-e-l- l- ting.

    • Is he as qualified as the the prospectors getting tattoos or the ice road tow truckers TWC airs now?
      The current CEO of TWC who airs this stuff is more qualified?
      What’s your favorite Kook-Aid flavor?

  20. You did a great job considering the amount of time they gave you, and the tone of the interview.
    The CEO of the weather channel (David Kenny) told 3 big lies at the end of his talk:
    “It is true that there is more drought, more floods, more extreme weather as the climate evolves”
    I don’t think he believes he is lying though. I don’t think he actually has looked at the data about world drought, floods and extreme weather. If he has, I don’t think this guy can read a chart or a graph.

  21. One of John’s points is well worth repeating (paraphrase) – $2.5B is spent on climate change research in the US each year (not including the $18.0B spent on alternative energy – me) and the scientists only get the money if they are producing pro-global-warming-disaster results. It’s bought and paid for.
    Somehow this has to change.

    • Fear not. The cold is coming. Rather earlier than they expected I think. People will still have access to energy when they realise they have been conned. They will have some power to direct their anger. This was not in the plan. By the way, the BBC TV seems to be in panic mode this evening, almost constant reference to the dangers of global warming. They mention TOTAL elimination of greenhouse gases to prevent irreversible climate change. Wheeeeee…..

  22. Thank you John Coleman. Whether CNN intended it or not, they are now with Fox the first media to air cAGW as scam.

  23. Here is what another elderly gentleman, this time philosopher said some decades ago

    every scientist should know and adhere.
    As an engineer I certainly had to do it, else I would have been kicked out in no time.

  24. A Lesson to be learnt re getting it out there. Mr Coleman has probably done more to get the message out there than all the skeptic sites put together by simple writing a letter and being a founder of the weather channel.Unfortunately all the complex postings done by WUWT SG CA ect dod not really get out there. One bit of good news that will actually get something done about it here http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/republicans-win-senate-majority-tuesday-poll-article-1.1996471

    • It’d be hard for the MSM to ignore the the founder of TWC says after Fox gave him air time.
      Lots of people who haven’t paid attention heard something “they” would rather be left unsaid.
      They have big name actors like DiCaprico and Ford pretending to understand weather and climate. We have a “big name” who actually does.
      (I’m sure he’d admit that he doesn’t understand it all. Who really does? But he understands enough to recognize the political/climate change (you can believe in) is BS.

      • If the sceptics got equal airtime this whole CAGW game would be over. Media outlets are beginning to pay attention due to the temp standstill and not just because of who started a weather channel. If there was no temp standstill there would have been no interview with Mr. Coleman. Mr Coleman also stands on the shoulders of hard working ants. Remember, AR5 was derailed because sceptics were succeful in conveying the temperature standstill.

  25. Well done Mr. Coleman, I would love for you to make a similar appearance on our national (Irish, R.T.E) T.V. main evening news. I’m sick to death of emailing complaints to them regarding their biased bulletins on Climate change. You would also have a good chance of getting in the last word.
    We need more visibility of the Skeptic view point. I think you are doing a great job of that.
    Best regards, Eamon.

  26. I thought John Coleman did a great job getting his points across to an openly biased “interviewer” His use of Denier even before the interview began laid his world view open for all to see. Then he used the discredited 97% concensus canard and on and on. Well played Mr. Coleman ! Well played !

  27. Every time I hear any of these interviews or debates the alarmists always use the 97% of scientists agree.
    Isn’t there a simpler and better way to counter this as a bogus figure?
    Wasn’t the scientists’ response 3146 (papers) of which they used 75 of 77 to get the 97% where the real figure is 2.4% (75 out of 3146)?

    • I agree. The 97% figure was BS to begin with.
      Galileo probably had the same thing thrown at him in 1615 … “97% of all Bishops and Cardinals agree that the Earth is the Center of the Universe. Oh BTW, the other 3% are now on the rack in Vatican dungeon. Et tu?””

  28. CNN pulled the ‘Final Word’ trick outta the bag,….again.
    They gave the last word to the Vox Populi of the watermelon apparatchik, as you’d expect, so the alarmist message rang out as the last word on the matter.
    The interviewer was trying, I think, to paint Mr Coleman as an old geezer, a ‘grumpy old man’ type.
    The alarmists can’t do a graceful interview, the snide always leaks through.
    CNN would look at home behind the old iron curtain, are we sure they’re not a branch of PRAVDA?

  29. Congratulations and a big thank you to John Coleman for standing up and telling the world that the “climate change” emperor has no clothes. And neither [do] the emperor’s would-be sycophants in the White House. The sooner we can get rid of these pretenders, the better our chances of righting the topsy-turvey world they are attempting to create.
    /Mr Lynn

  30. I love the expression on the host,s face when he asks Coleman how he felt about being disavowed by TWC in their statement regarding Coleman, and Coleman replies ” that’s ok. It is all accurate.”. The host was clearly not expecting a reply of that nature. He didn’t know what to come back with as a reply and Coleman kept the floor. He did a great job in getting a clear outline of the climate debate presented in understandable terms.

  31. Well done, John Coleman! Thank you for speaking out. Science is now and always has been skeptical; it’s the nature of the endeavor to poke holes wherever and whenever possible, to find fault and inconsistencies. Scientific method was designed to weed out and discard the weak and misguided hunches, guesses, what-ifs, wishful thinking, hypotheses and theories. Only strong and repeatedly replicated and verified ideas and observations can survive the process.
    Those who have refused to follow the methods of science are ‘deniers’. It is they who have denied the evidence and the facts; they who have failed to weed out and discard weak and misguided musings; they who have abandoned science in the name of political advocacy and expedience. And in many cases personal gain.
    The deniers needed 5-10 years of additional warming to pull off their scam. They guessed they’d get it. They were wrong. Had they actually done some science, they could have deduced their chances of succeeding were slim at best. Fortunately, the good earth refused to cooperated and enough good people refused to be silenced by intimidation and shaming. The scam is falling apart. People everywhere are waking up and wondering where has all the warming gone. Why do the deniers have 50+ excuses why we don’t feel all the heat they say is soon to cook us. The general feeling is we could use some more of it, thank you, especially in the Northern Hemisphere.
    I’m optimistic that soon the scam will collapse entirely and we can begin to undo whatever damage can be undone and seek as much redress as possible from those who inflicted it upon us. There is precedent for how to deal with them, but I won’t mention it because it would get me modded.
    /rant thanks for reading.

  32. Thanks for the nice comments. My skill is “doing TV and radio”, after all I have done it for a living for 60 years. I trying to learn to write more interestingly. I will have a written piece in a day or two. I will try to get someone to publish it. We will see. In any case, in retirement I can devote full time to the climate debate. It is a worthy cause, as I see it.

    • I’ve notice that it is the retired guys (you, Fred Singer, etc) who are much more likely to speak out against the CAGW heard mindset. There is no one signing your checks, so no ‘pressure points’ to keep you silent. Those still working, even if their grant money doesn’t depend directly on climate research, fear retaliation from their bosses if they publicly speak out on the ‘wrong side’ of the debate.

    • A wonderful interview, Mr. Coleman. There is absolutely no substitute for experience and the concomitant wisdom.
      I would suggest that you expand on the issue of the amount of man-made global warming as this is where the 97% BS comes from. Most of us here are familiar with that problem, but the average CNN (or FOX) viewer is not. That figure will always be thrown out and it is good to put a stake in it early on.

  33. Given the brevity of the slot, and the continuous efforts of the host to get him to endorse some kook position, John did well. CNN came off looking like the doormat for Warmist propaganda that it is.

  34. another example of a man’s lifetimes work,
    and reputation.
    attacked by paid spin doctors.
    money for nothing and renewable chicks for free.

    • I have to get one of those renewable chicks, for free. So far, these chick have cost me many $$$$’s. And thats just the one I married.

  35. It will be buried, esp here in Aus. The Fegeral govn’t is now looking at, again, of internet control. But there is always a way around that.

  36. The CEO of the Weather channel claimed that their information comes from science . That is clearly not true . Their information comes from the exaggeration of science and the use of worst case scenarios that will never come to pass.

  37. Ten years ago, the Pentagon paid for a climate study that put forth many scary scenarios.
    Consultants told the military that, by now, California would be flooded by inland seas, The Hague would be unlivable, polar ice would be mostly gone in summer, and global temperatures would rise at an accelerated rate as high as 0.5 degrees a year.
    None of that has happened…
    The report also became gospel to climate change doomsayers, who predicted pervasive and more intense hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and droughts…Doug Randall, who co-authored the Pentagon report, said, “Even I’m surprised at how often it’s referred to…
    Asked about his scenarios for the 2003-2010 period, Mr. Randall said in an interview: “The report was really looking at worst-case. And when you are looking at worst-case 10 years out, you are not trying to predict precisely what’s going to happen but instead trying to get people to understand what could happen to motivate strategic decision-making and wake people up. But whether the actual specifics came true, of course not. That never was the main intent.”…
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/1/pentagon-wrestles-with-false-climate-predictions-a/?page=all
    This Pentagon climate report speaks to the heart of false climate science alarmism that is rampant to day that JOHN COLEMAN refers to. .These alarmist climate science reports are meant to exaggerate and scare people. They do not highlight that these are worst case projections in the opening paragraph. These qualifications never make the headlines or press releases .The rational world does not plan for the future based on worst case scenarios. We might as well all quit living if this was the case . No nation can afford to spend money to mitigate worst case scenarios, nor should they. The problem is that the current set of politicians take these worst case situations and make firm public policies and actions as if they were true. They then fabricate entirely new falsehoods like carbon dioxide is a pollutant on top of these worst case scenarios and you now have a firm government action thrust on the general public that is all pure fabrication of a worst case scenario that will never come about. Yet it comes from the highest administrative offices in the land

  38. Mr. Coleman,
    Marvelous job, sir.
    I have mused lately that if climate science is settled then why do they have such a difficult time manufacturing an accurate model? Maybe, they aren’t as proficient of scientist as the ones that put a man on the moon and bring him home safely. BTW, didn’t these proficient scientist denounce and challenge the posers who can’t handle debate?
    Anthony Hollingsworth

  39. I listened to John Coleman’s exchange with the CNN host before I knew any of the circumstances. I thought John did fantastic and I was puzzled how CNN allowed this thing to happen (except for some accidental airport exposure I haven’t watched CNN for years and I didn’t know who the bald host was).
    Now that I’ve read some of the background I will always remember that Brian Stelter is the guy who tried to play games with John Coleman in November 2014 and got owned.

Comments are closed.