Weather Channel founder BTFOs CNN on the Climate Change Hoax

YT: youtube.com/watch?v=ihnkZOEe378
MP3: adam.curry.com/enc/1496953146.237_cnnsbrianstelterdestroyedbyweatherchannelfounderjohncolemanoverglobalwarming.mp3

just watch this guy lay the fucking law down like a champ, shut the host up repeatedly, and generally tell it like it fucking is.

(just heard the clip on Thursday's No Agenda btw)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=SyUDGfCNC-k
jyi.org/issue/delayed-gratification-why-it-took-everybody-so-long-to-acknowledge-that-bacteria-cause-ulcers/
youtube.com/watch?v=5ut-EUHouBs
youtube.com/watch?v=Vh4dIkEyfd0
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

I'm surprised they even aired it instead of taping it and scrapping it.

fucking beautiful

You can hear the cock in the other guys mouth.

the first 30 seconds of the clip might be the most entertaining piece of television I've seen so far this year.

COLEMAN: I resent you calling me a denier, that is a word meant to put me down—I'm a skeptic about climate change. And I want to make it darn clear Mr. Kennedy's not a scientist—I am. He's the CEO of The Weather Channel now, I was the FOUNDER of The Weather Channel,
>lower third says "John Coleman | Co-Founder, The Weather Channel
NOT the co-founder!

HOST: And I'm glad you did, because I am addicted to The Weather Channel,
I watch a lot of cable news—

COLEMAN: Stop talking now, hold on just a minute, I'm not done.

I hate that host. idk what his name is but shapiro buttfucks him on a regular basis as well

someones getting fired.

He also did a series for the news channel he used to be on -- I remember seeing him all the time since I live in SD county.

youtube.com/watch?v=SyUDGfCNC-k

>I do love the Weather Chann-
>Shut up, sonny boy!

>tfw addicted to the weather channel

the first minute of this video is amazing. I was trying to figure out "wtf is this format, why is he gesturing at the green scree—oh, he's a weatherman, lol, perfect". def going to use both of these videos to redpill my otherwise redpilled sister when I see her next—it's her biggest missing redpill, she refuses to disbelieve it because she's an engineer and "the science is settled"

I'm honestly more surprised they didn't cut him off due to a "technical error"

>less than 500 views
>240p
the science is settled

Bump

>2014

lolol guess it is. it's been making the rounds this week though for some reason, and it was covered on No Agenda on the 8th.

still a great clip.
>...you wouldn't allow it to happen on CNN, but I'm glad that I got on the air and got a chance to talk to your viewers—Hello, everybody! There is no global warming!

This old fart has no idea what he's talking about.

He says he's a scientist, but his Wikipedia says he got his degree in journalism. Where and in what did he get this PhD he is suggesting he got? He had an interest in meteorology and got into the AMS, but that doesn't make you a scientist. He started The Weather Channel, but that doesn't make you an authority on climate science. It should be illegal for anyone without a graduate degree to position themselves as a scientific authority.

Science is about consensus, to a degree. Independent verification of experiments is a cornerstone of science.

His conspiracy theories about the motivation of scientists and governments is nonsense. Even putting aside the reach the conspiracy would need to have within the United States, there is a consensus view that climate change among the worldwide community of scientists.

Literally the only group of people who deny human-induced climate change are Republicans in the United States and people paid by industries dependent on fossil fuels.

CNN is Hitler

Shut the fuck up sonny boy

CIA News Network. Anderson Cooper is confirmed CIA, check his Wikipedia. literal propaganda outlet

>It should be illegal for anyone without a graduate degree to position themselves as a scientific authority.
Good rule. You guys go first.

he's got this
>Coleman obtained Professional membership status in the American Meteorological Society and was named AMS Broadcast Meteorologist of the Year in 1983.
I mean he's been apart of a scientific community and read scientific papers for 10 years that has to mean something.
>Science is about consensus, to a degree.
the scientific community is about consensus to a degree since new challenging data that affects the current paradigm must be presented in a way that doesn't differ from their lingual or informal "rules". Validation for your research doesn't equate to consensus btw, that just proves that the experiment is repeatable and has the same results when repeated.

Literally if you look up 97% you'll see tons of articles claiming that number of scientists coming to a consensus is false and that the number is misleading. Climate change research funding is given based on the premise that its happening no? I mean if its not why would anyone give money to research something that can be proven to never happen. Climate change is a huge political topic encompassing nearly every aspect of people's lives so its very reasonable why people would be skeptical of its existence or its consequences.

holy shit I'd already forgotten about Bill Nye. did liberals just agree to pretend that whole thing never happened?

>I'm talking now

climate change is real, deal with it

>Wikipedia
stopped right there

ITM.

That's Stelter. He's a shill. Like a real shill. Not your Dem-loving braindead retard on Twitter. This guy sold his soul long ago to the left.

Just seeing him shut down that disingenuous sycophantic interruption from the reporter telling him how much he "loves the Weather Channel" made me like this guy instantly.

...

>climate change is real
and....? What should we do about it? Should we dedicate billions upon billions of dollars towards solar and wind energy since that's where the money's going to end up and millions of man hours to combat a climate disaster that has no concrete evidence of ever occurring? Should we dedicate billions into research of climate change and have some closure when it turns out humans have damn near no effect or very little effect on the climate?`

>mfw you're still in middle school so you think Wikipedia isn't a valid source. Just check the source included on the Wikipedia you fucking tard

Prove it.

His point was that science isn't a vote. The only "consensus" science gives a shit about is the consensus in results. People saying they agree is not science.

The problem with Whack Off Pedia, is that virtually ANYONE can edit a page on a whim. So how do you really know the information presented is 100% correct beyond any shadow of a doubt at any given time?

>wikipedia
>there are more elephants today in african than there ever were before

that's not comparable
I agree with your general message though, please don't gamer-shot me with a reaction image

>Literally the only group of people who deny human-induced climate change are Republicans in the United States and people paid by industries dependent on fossil fuels.

like the "green energy industry" isn't a multi billion dollar industry. only coal and oil have the money to pay for shills!

where do you go to get info about random people of note

If climate change was real, or at least a real danger, why aren't we spending more on LFTR and fusion development?

You check the list of sources at the bottom of the wikipedia page... If they're legit, the information is legit. If not, the information may not be legit. Really simple.

Climate Change= Global Wealth Redistribution

>why aren't we spending more on LFTR and fusion development?
because solar shills and oil shills have teamed up to destroy nuclear energy's image for the past 50 years

looks like this was already debunked sorry guys

Probably too busy practicing versatile love.

>weather channel
>literally repackages NOAA-provided forecasts with advertisements
>CEO is clearly an authority on weather
>being THIS DESPERATE

Here's my take on the whole idea of climate change. If the government actually gave a shit about saving the fucking planet, why would they sell carbon credits to all the companies that they turn around and say is the source of the problem to begin with. It's just a fucking money making scheme, and the lemmings eat it up, never once questioning if the people telling them these things have an ulterior motive or not.

John Coleman is based, he was my local weatherman when I was growing up in San Diego. He gives no fucks.

He's absolutely right too, if the only money being offered to academics is to further support the narrative, of course the "scientists" are going to agree that climate change is a problem. No money, no voice.

won't do anything, he's too old and white and looks like he says nigger cummy tummy nigger cummy tummy nigger cummy tummy to himself before taking his naps in his custom hospital-bed at home the LOSER because CNN's viewership is overwhelmingly young and hip according to the ads sage man I'm tired now you feel that?

How is it not comparable? They literally use the same analytical models to forecast hurricanes landfall probabilities as they do to make predictions about the climate 100 years from now.

>named AMS Broadcast Meteorologist of the Year in 1983
He's just a really old TV weatherman that your grandfather used to watch on TV half a century ago. Zero scientific credentials and just a Journalism degree to his name.

I don't have a side on climate change debate (leaning towards naturally changing or solar activity more than human activity). The problem I have is the left or the right putting up people with fake credentials trampling over the real science. Both CNN and fox are equally guilty of this.

Yeah, literally ANYONE can change ANY website too, if they try hard enough.
You realize there's tons of wikipedia pages that are locked and can't be publicly changed, right?
When a bunch of sick-ass teenagers go and meme up a page, the admins of the site will usually lock the article up.
An example is Revolution 60.

He was not a scientist. He was a weatherman with an interest in meteorology that joined the AMS. That's it. He doesn't and didn't do research.

The idea of repetition is that someone else can do them and get the same results. A claim isn't considered "scientific" unless the community of scientists agree that it is.

>Climate change research funding is given based on the premise that its happening no?
As it should be because the evidence suggests that it is. However that is irrelevant. Climate science funding is given on the assumption that it is occurring, but the actual research simply uses tools to gather and interpret data.

The only people "skeptical" of climate change are American republicans, a group of people who are either uninformed and skeptical about "science" in general or benefit from the disbelief in climate change.

>The only people "skeptical" of climate change are American republicans, a group of people who are either uninformed and skeptical about "science" in general or benefit from the disbelief in climate change.

How can you claim to be a scientist when you make wildly inaccurate claims such as this one? Talk to a geologist, you will find that most of them do not believe that climate change as an issue necessitates the hysterical attention it currently receives.

...

How the fuck do you know anything you read is real beyond a shadow of a doubt?

Wikipedia is a great resource

He looks like a pedo.

>A claim isn't considered "scientific" unless the community of scientists agree that it is.
thats not true at all, there have been claims that aren't considered scientific at first because of the subjective matter of the scientific community but are actually scientific. Marshall's and Warrens theory on ulcers are bacteria based being a prime example of this, and the only example i can think of.
jyi.org/issue/delayed-gratification-why-it-took-everybody-so-long-to-acknowledge-that-bacteria-cause-ulcers/

>Climate science funding is given on the assumption that it is occurring, but the actual research simply uses tools to gather and interpret data.
You literally admitted that climate research is given so they can prove the already speculated hypothesis, there's no honesty in that when you already think you know the answer and are looking for proof for that answer. Its not right to generalize an entire group of people who are skeptical about something scientific for having political motives otherwise because that disingenuous and dismissive

>but the actual research simply uses tools to gather and interpret data.

You mean misleading data used to push their world view?

>His conspiracy theories about the motivation of scientists and governments is nonsense

so it's a conspiracy theory if the government is collaborating with scientists to meet an end, but not when corporations collaborate with scientists for the same purpose?

>The only people "skeptical" of climate change are American republicans, a group of people who are either uninformed and skeptical about "science" in general or benefit from the disbelief in climate change.

I don't have any political affiliation. I'm an independent voter. I'm just plain skeptical of any sort of alleged scientific inquiry that continuously silences any dissenting voice and proclaims "The science is settled!" Valid scientific inquiry would constantly be looking for answers to back up their assertions, not tell everyone "Shut up, we know what we're talking about, the science is settled.", or going back and rewriting past data to fit their narrative. And if the government actually gave a shit about saving the planet, why woulod they even bother selling "carbon credits" to the very sources of "climate change" that they continually spout off about, rather than crack down on them? The whole fucking thing is just a money making scheme.

also ITM, OP.

That is an empty point. There is science as a method and there is science as an institution full of people who use the scientific method. Our policies on scientific topics are generally (or should be) directed by the relevant scientific institutions.

When you deny the fact that 97% of experts in the field claim that human-induced climate change is occurring, you are claiming that they are lying or that you have access to a set of facts that invalidate their claim.

wwwwwwwwwwwwwwrong. The minute you begin blindly trusting anyone, scientists included, you become a slave to somebody else. Without recreatable evidence, it isn't science. It's just politics.

The 97% statistic is bullshit. It was taken from a survey of 100 scientists. It doesn't represent anything other than 100 scientists cherry picked from government funded institutions.

Asking a geologist about climate change is like as asking an a particle physicist about chemistry. Geologist work on a very different scale from climatologists and their work is distinctly non-anthropocentric.

If you're not trolling, I feel bad for you. Science has never and will never be an institution. It is a field of study, and in order to study it, you use the scientific method.

HOLY FUCK BTFO

That's a complete false equivalence. Geologists have a thorough record of the Earth's warming and cooling cycles going back millions of years, they are certainly authorities on Earthly climatic phenomena. To disregard their views simply because they do not conform with your own is both foolish and unscientific.

Hahaha oh man

Im THE founder you little shithead

Im embarrassed for you with how hard this post got rekt.

The reason why they didn't cut off the feed is because they probably broadcasted this during a time no one watches, and lets just get down the the base how many people in the USA do you think actually saw this and took it as truth? I say not even 5%

He is spot on about the money thing. Researchers and Scientists need money for experiments, but to get the money they have to play with whoever is funding and prove whatever the funder wants. Like "Pepsi gives you liver cancer" a Research sponsored by Coca Cola.

Thats another they they can bury things, but the more proconservative stuff on at non-prime time, then when people analyze how "balanced" your coverage is, its harder to see the bias if they sample all the hours.

Wow just stop please this is too cringe

Yeah, nobody at the EPA will give you funding for cleaner coal, disproving man made global warming, etc

Thank god Trump is gutting it

all of those "pro man made climate change" studies published get torn apart in their peer reviews. they use flawed and biased research and when that is not enough, they just make up numbers.

to date there is not one published climate change study with favorable peer reviews.

>scientist
youtube.com/watch?v=5ut-EUHouBs

youtube.com/watch?v=Vh4dIkEyfd0

>the scientific community is about consensus
True.


-Science- IS NOT about consensus.

You only validated my point. I said "considered." It was not considered scientific until scientists decided that it was.

Strictly speaking, any claim you can test, whether it turns out to be true or false, is a scientific one. If you can't test it (whether due to practical or theoretical limitations), it's not scientific. What I should have said is that, informally, claims not accepted within the scientific community or not science. And by that I refer to the institution of people who use the scientific method in an official capacity.

>You literally admitted that climate research is given so they can prove the already speculated hypothesis,
Wrong. I said that it was given based on the premise that it was occurring, ie there is an assumption that climate change is happening. There is also an assumption that gravity exists and that macroscopic objects more or less follow Newton's Law's of motion. Do you have a problem with that as well?

The trouble you're having here is that you seem to think that if they assume climate change is occurring, that any research done on climate change using objective tools and data will always confirm the result. That is not how it works.

Yes, if you don't believe in climate change, I automatically put you into the boat of conspiracy theorist, retard, and/or fossil fuels shill, unless you can give some very good reasons why. I feel the same way about flat-earthers or HIV-deniers. We have a shared reality here, and there is a point at which your "skepticism" is just denial.

The EMU are ready for you.

Climate change over 100,000 years says that everything is normal, 3 decades is nothing but random static. Fuck your climate change.

>CNN has a strong position on climate change

No shit. Who do you think owns CNN.

You do know that plenty of paid medical research positions are held by BS's rather than grads right?

It is a conspiracy theory to claim that the world's governments are covertly paying tens of thousands of scientists to, in concert, falsify research on climate.

It is not a conspiracy theory to point out that the few scientists who dissent from the majority viewpoint are generally paid by an industry who sees climate change acceptance as a threat to its existence.

He's a TV weatherman, not a scientist.

For cheap disposable screw-ups, yeah.

>climate change is real
No warming in 20 years.

Well it's just climate change, it's not Benghazi or Seth Rich.

>falsify research on climate.

That's not true. They don't do research, they write studies that say what governments want them to say.

Not Science.

I don't understand it either. Nuclear is our only real hope for the foreseeable next 20-35 years and nobody is promoting it.

I can understand why climate deniers won't talk about it, because they are all basically funded by fossil fuel interests that don't want competition and policy threats to their business model. But I don't understand the silence on that solution from every other side.

WHAT PART OF SAFE CLEAN CHEAP 24/7 LOAD POWER DO PEOPLE NOT UNDERSTAND?

No one said anything about blind trust. You don't blindly trust doctors, but their opinions hold a lot more weight than your neighbor Joe. And if after a 2nd and 3rd opinion you are diagnosed with cancer, you don't remain a "skeptic." You are in denial about something the facts say is true.

>The 97% statistic is bullshit. It was taken from a survey of 100 scientists
Nope. It was taken by tens of thousands and has been done several times over.

What is the test for climate change?

Thorium reactors could do it.

The problem with thorium is it can't be used to make weapons.

Cause the Elites who invest in thermonuclear warheads wants ALL the power of nuclear, does not want to share and God forbid have Russia or China develop some to rival their amount.

There isn't one. Climate changes over 100,000 years. We only have 160 years of records.

Coal is garbage anyways, Nuclear energy is the way to go.

Why do Republicans hate the environment? Why would you EVER be against an agency like the EPA? How do you not see the blaring conflict of interest when studies paid for by oil companies say that fossil fuels aren't the problem? How can you honestly think that pumping black tar into the sky could be a good thing? Have you ever taken a class on Meteorology or Environmental biology? Are you opinions rooted anything other than opinion and bullshit from Faux news? I could honestly support the right on many things but their complete non-acknowledgement of man made climate change is utter stupidity and not something that I can put my name behind.

>I said that it was given based on the premise that it was occurring, ie there is an assumption that climate change is happening.
isn't the scientific method about testing a hypothesis with an experiment and not the other way 'round?
>tfw when you fund groups based on finding data to prove a hypothesis instead ways to test the hypothesis you end up with something that isn't science.

>Republicans

RAPE YOURSELF WITH A KNIFE

You troll have never been to a refinery before have you?