Weather Channel Founder Advocates Suing Al Gore

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.




I would have to agree with this guy. Someone should sue al gore to expose his scam.

www.businessandmedia.org...

[edit on 3-3-2008 by bakednutz]

I quit watching the Weather Channel a long time ago. They completely lost credibility. They are like the MTV of the news world. Remember when MTV used to be nothing but music videos? Remember when TWC used to be about weather? Its The Weather Channel not The Climate Channel. They need to stick to weather because they obviously don't know anything about the climate.

reply to post by Indy


You are right on. MTV is a perfect example. It is called the weather channel for a reason. If the founder of it is speaking out against its programming you know something is not right.

Brilliant concept, highly doubt it will work. I will jump on board if we can get enough people who are not lemmings and fully believe in government intervention of running your every waking moment, I mean global warming.

In my opinion it's about bloody time someone sued Gore... as far as I understand he doesn't even represent AGW proponents very accurately. It's a shame he's garnered so much support; it's time he was put in his place. Part of the punishment should be a compulsory trip to starving African countries... see first hand the damage he played a part in the continuation of.

reply to post by SlyCM (work)


It is apparent that not many people share your view. Although I do. There are more stars on this than there are posts. Kinda strange. Are people agreeing but afraid to speak out. The founder of the TWC wants this, kinda important, maybe.

The worst thing about Gore is his "do as I say, not as I do" mentality. With his resources he should be able to live completely off the grid using 100% wind and solar power. Instead he is a resource hog. Between what his house consumes and what he uses flying around the country/world he is a huge polluter. What he means is that EVERYONE ELSE should conserve. Just not him.

Gore is a typical politician. He is above the rules. He is an orator and nothing more. I think he is a total weenie. If you believe in something enough to make movies and speeches about it, at least TRY and live a semblance of what you preach

Originally posted by Indy
The worst thing about Gore is his "do as I say, not as I do" mentality. With his resources he should be able to live completely off the grid using 100% wind and solar power. Instead he is a resource hog. Between what his house consumes and what he uses flying around the country/world he is a huge polluter. What he means is that EVERYONE ELSE should conserve. Just not him.

But...but...he buys carbon credits!! That should even things up!!

He has how many houses? Flies around to every speaking event, and I bet it's a private jet.

He's just typical of the elite. As you said, "do as I say, not as I do."

My reasons for saying "it's about time" on this matter has nothing to do with the figureheads involved. If I were to say anything about anyone, I'll say I'm grateful for the founder finding a way to force the debate between scientists. As a scientist myself, I've been educated in college that global warming may or may not be happening. One thing that is certain is in a couple of thousands of years, we should know for sure. The problem with stating Carte Blanc that global warming exists is lack of evidence...which is a common theme in pop science. Here is how you can tell whether something is actually in a scientific study versus pop science. Pop science demands immediate action for which there is no data and explanation to support it. Look at the data, listen for the explanation, look back at the data, ask different scientists, look again at the explanation. If after doing all this there is very very little inconsistency, then chances are there is actual science going on. I wish scientists (who are involved in meterology, it's not my study) and those they work for could have this discussion outside of the courtroom, but if there's no other way...

The case will more than likely not amount to much, but it'll achieve three vital goals:

1.) A recorded scientific discussion on the matter.

2.) Attention to the dichotomy of believers versus non-believers in the faith of Global Warming.

3.) An interest by those watching/reading in learning more about the science.

Scientists aren't always right either. One needs only the drive to learn as much as possible, flexible and open to listen to all sides, and the practice of discerning truth from rhetoric.


[edit on 14-3-2008 by saint4God]

I think it is an excellent idea, not only because I think that Gore is a fraud but because, like he said, this is the best chance for the pro and anti global warming folks to have a venue where the evidence can be seen and heard by all and I agree about TWC's programming.
The ONLY time that I watch TWC anymore is during hurricane season and

I gotta give props to The Weather Channel in a few regards. They do have better equipment for reporting/predicting, they are dedicated to doing one thing and one thing well, they are more accurate than network 'action news' kinds of programs, they have a broader base of coverage, and most of all - the super convenient and detailed website www.weather.com... which I will frequent when I'm planning outdoor activities.

In contrast, do you think anyone would watch The Global Warming Channel hosted by Al? Why or why not?

[edit on 15-3-2008 by saint4God]