Weather Channel founder says myth about ‘man-made’ global warming is the “greatest scam” of all time

Posted by: ST on November 7, 2007 at 9:51 pm

Via Noel Sheppard, I just read this very interesting piece about Weather Channel founder John Coleman (who is now the meteorologist for KUSI in San Diego), and his belief that global warming is the “greatest scam in history.” Here’s a preview:

It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create in allusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the “research” to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.

Environmental extremists, notable politicians among them, then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this wild “scientific” scenario of the civilization threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda. Now their ridiculous manipulated science has been accepted as fact and become a cornerstone issue for CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic Political Party, the Governor of California, school teachers and, in many cases, well informed but very gullible environmental conscientious citizens. Only one reporter at ABC has been allowed to counter the Global Warming frenzy with one 15 minutes documentary segment.

I do not oppose environmentalism. I do not oppose the political positions of either party. However, Global Warming, ie Climate Change, is not about environmentalism or politics. It is not a religion. It is not something you “believe in.” It is science; the science of meteorology. This is my field of life-long expertise. And I am telling you Global Warming is a non-event, a manufactured crisis and a total scam. I say this knowing you probably won’t believe a me, a mere TV weatherman, challenging a Nobel Prize, Academy Award and Emmy Award winning former Vice President of United States. So be it.

Read the whole thing.

Ironically, the same Weather Channel he created 25 years ago is the same one which now actively promotes the theory that global warming is “man-made” so much so to the point that the channel’s global warming guru, Dr. Heidi Cullen, advocated last year that the AMA threaten to withhold their seal of approval from any meteorologists who were/are skeptical of the popular claims made about global warming. I can only imagine the fireworks that would ensue if they tried to take Coleman’s away.

RSS feed for comments on this post.


  • Geek for Mike Huckabee trackbacked with Global Warming Greatest Scam in History
  • 29 Responses to “Weather Channel founder says myth about ‘man-made’ global warming is the “greatest scam” of all time”


    1. camojack says:

      I think people are (slowly) beginning to realize this. :-w
      (Too slowly, for my tastes, but that’s people for ya)

    2. JoeCitizen says:

      Are you really impressed by reading this? This guy is a scientist??? Well, no actually he is a weatherman and media organizer. But seriously, it reads like an adolescent blogger’s rant. Is this what passes for serious persuasive argument in your circles?

      Yes John, you are right about one thing. I am not going to believe you, because for every one of you, there are hundreds of far-more qualified active scientists who disagree strongly with you. Just like a typical ranter, you think that using stronger language (a SCAM!!!), is a substitute for stronger arguments.

      Its a conspiracy, ya see! And anyone who accepts it is just gullible. Listen to me! I know better than all the experts. I’m on TV!

      What a clown.

    3. Tom TB says:

      “Are you really impressed by reading this? This guy is a scientist???” Hey Joe, my incredulity matches yours; but wait..I thought you were talking about Al Gore!

    4. Severian says:

      I see JoeCitzen has drunk deeply of the KoolAid of global warming, but considering his other comments that’s hardly surprising. Remarkably gullible these leftists, but only for things that are not true.

      I’m more concerned by the prospect of global cooling. It’s more likely to happen in the next decade or two, and it’s a lot more damaging to people than warming is. And, it will be doubly so if we allow politically motivated “scientists” to convince our leaders, or rather give them the rationale they need to do what they want to do anyway, and hamstring our economies and energy infrastructures. Not that there is anything we can do about it either way, hot or cold, other than adapt.

      Currently solar cycle 24 is way overdue to start, and if the predictions are correct we may be staring at another Maunder Minimum in the near future. Only time will tell.

    5. Peter G Boston says:

      I agree with JoeCitizen. Does Mr. Gilmore, or any so called, scientist offer any scientific evidence to the contrary? Or do they just rant and rave? I going to lean toward the 140 Nation coalition of scientists, Climatologists, NASA scientist and Nobel Peace prize winners before I listen to Joe weatherman! Hello! What is the conspiracy motive? Why would all these truly scientific and academic people make this up? What do they get? Some of you conspiracy theorists are WHACKED! You know, I actually hope they are wrong! I don’t want their predictions to come true! BUT, what if they are right? Think about it! OK, so if they are wrong, they go down in history as biggest nay sayers of the century? But if they are right, people like Mr. Gilmore and freinds go down as, foolish idiots who sat around and watched millions of die! And watched millions of people get diplaced and die of starvation! and leave a ruined, chaotic world to future generations! I know which side I’m on. And what is the worst that can happen if they are wrong? Oh, we stop polluting the air we breathe and the water we drink? Oh, we lessen our dependency on oil and stop funding terrorists who want to harm us? Oh, we provide inovation and spawn a new markets and jobs? Oh, we provide cheap renewable energy to the world that doesn’t kill! Yah, sounds aweful, doesn’t it? Yah Mr. Gilmore and freinds, it’s a big conspiracy! Fools!/:)

    6. Severian says:

      If you haven’t seen scientific evidence to the contrary, it’s because you haven’t been looking. Every week more and more evidence comes out showing the fallacy of thinking that CO2 in general, and anthropogenic CO2 in particular, is the culprit in the minuscule warming we’ve seen over the last century.

      Perhaps, also, you are going to tell us why increased temperatures will be the end of all life on the planet, when past temp maxima, higher than this temp rise, resulted in the rise of civilizations and the Renaissance and the temp declines resulted in mass starvation and global upheaval?

      But perhaps you’d like to take a shot at explaining to us all how you can accurately say that we’ve had less than a degree of temp increase over the past century when the error bars on the temp measurement accuracy is on the order of + or – 2 to 3 degrees? Perhaps you’d like to go to and tell us how you can get accurate temperature data from the stations illustrated.

      Or, more likely, perhaps you are just going to parrot Gore’s propaganda BS like a demented Golden Crested Amazon. 8-| Pull your head out of your nether regions and go look at the “skeptic” or “denier” science with an open mind, instead of just frantically googling to try and find a reason not to think about it from some pro-AGW propaganda site.

      Think for yourselves for a change.

    7. Severian says:

      Oh, we stop polluting the air we breathe and the water we drink?

      Typical strawman. CO2 is NOT A POLLUTANT!!! Idiot! We already control real pollutants quite well.

      Geez, the idiots always rise to the occasion on these kinds of posts. Always exactly the same rants, same lies, same distortions, same incredible gullibility and lack of critical thinking, and same smug, self important attitude. All the while parroting the exact same thing we see from every other leftist troll on the subject.

    8. BrianR says:

      Those that have concluded global warming is happening, that it is, in part, caused by human activity, and that it won’t be beneficial have stated their case and shown ample evidence (IPCC).

      I don’t see how pointing out minor errors that lead to insignificant changes in the broader picture leads one to believe it’s a “scam” perpetrated by some shadowy conspiracy. Sure, maybe we don’t understand every last little component, the climate system is exceedingly complex, but it is quite a leap to then say it’s a hoax.

      It’s time for those claiming it’s a hoax (i.e., a premeditated and highly organized affair) to present their evidence. Pissin’ and moanin’ about Al Gore doesn’t count. Take him out of the equation entirely.

    9. Severian says:

      Once again, if you really haven’t seen the evidence that this is a major hoax, you haven’t been looking. I strongly suggest you start looking at places like and and following the threads there. They will lead you to lots and lots of additional information.

      Put it this way, it’s not the “deniers” who are refusing to share their data and methods, who are hiding their algorithms and work and refusing to be open and above board about their methods and results, it’s people like Mann and Wang and the rest of the AGW mafia.

      The whole IPCC is a deeply flawed and biased political organization. I suggest you take the time to read the following testimony given to the House of Lords regarding their accuracy and honesty, and then ask yourself if you truly still can believe everything they say. If you still swallow the IPCC “consensus” then you are not objective on this subject and never will be.


    10. Severian says:


      Another excellent review of the IPCC, the infamous “hockey stick” and other issues relevant to the discussion.


      The climatic “hockey stick” hypothesis has systemic problems. I review how the
      IPCC came to adopt the “hockey stick” as scientific evidence of human
      interference with the climate. I report also on independent peer reviewed studies
      of the “hockey stick” that were instigated by the US House of Representatives in
      2006, and which comprehensively invalidated it. The “divergence” problem and
      the selective and unreliable nature of tree ring reconstructions are discussed, as is
      the unsatisfactory review process of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report that
      ignored the invalidation of the “hockey stick”. The error found recently in the
      GISS temperature series is also noted. It is concluded that the IPCC has neither the
      structure nor the necessary independence and supervision of its processes to be
      acceptable as the monopoly authority on climate science. Suggestions are made as
      to how the IPCC could improve its procedures towards producing reports and
      recommendations that are more scientifically sound.

    11. JoeCitizen says:

      “Perhaps, also, you are going to tell us why increased temperatures will be the end of all life on the planet,”

      Ah, no Sevarian. No one is going to make such a claim.

      You guys are just a riot. If you run out of things to make ignorant rants about, you just make up some stuff, and attack the strawman. Dont even break stride.

    12. BrianR says:

      Sevarian, re#9:
      I have followed the work at Climate Audit. Try and say “fraud” or “hoax” on that blog and you will be snipped immediately. Steve McIntyre has been very careful to state that the work they are doing is to uncover errors/inconsistencies; they are not claiming there is a hoax. So, you cannot point to the work they are doing as evidence for such.

      I like the work CA is doing…more scrutiny is great! I’m simply asking for those who believe this is a hoax, a scam, a diabolical plan to trick the global population, to provide evidence for that. If the conclusions of the IPCC are wrong, that’s one thing…but you (and others) insist on a hoax. You could not provide evidence for a hoax, because there isn’t one. This whole conspiracy theory crap reminds me of the 9-11 “truthers”. All you got is circumstantial anecdotes and rhetoric.

    13. Great White Rat says:

      Joe, try polishing the reading comprehension skills, OK? Severian’s comment that you highlighted was in direct response to your buddy Peter, who claimed (a) millions will die during our lifetime from global warming, and (b) pollution is somehow tied into this. Go back and read it. We’ll wait.


      OK, now do you get it? If you AGW cultists are going to come in here with hysterical ranting, expect to be called on it. I know you left-wing clowns are working on outlawing independent thought, but at this blog, people are still allowed to disagree. Even with al-Gore.

      By the way, while Severian provides links to scientific studies, it’s noteworthy that none of you members of the First Church of Global Warming and Discount Carbon Credits Outlet can provide a single link to your so-called facts.

    14. Steve Skubinna says:

      Tell you what, Joe, we’ll take this actual climate specialist, you keep your failed divinity student. And toss in all the media and entertainment figures as well.

      And out of curiosity, have you ever won an argument through a never ending stream of insult? Have you ever tried it to somebody face to face? Do you have to take your meals through a straw?

    15. NC Cop says:

      Do you have to take your meals through a straw?

      I think Al Gore has recently stated that straws are melting the ice caps so Joe wouldn’t ever use one.

    16. Tom TB says:

      I have this image of Al Gore returning from one of his globetrotting global warming lecture circuit jet fuel burning tours, relaxing in one of his over-heated spreads in Tennessee, popping a bottle of champagne, and saying to Tipper, “Don’t worry, honey, by the time these fools catch on to our scam, we will be long gone”.

    17. Severian says:

      McIntyre is playing very straight and conservative with his comments and such, as he is attempting to operate within the system so to speak. He’s attempting to fight this fraud, and yes, I use that word, from the inside, behaving as a serious scientist should. Behaving, I might add, far better than his opponents, who feel no need to refrain from smearing him with ad hominems and worse.

      So, let’s review. We have the IPCC which, contrary to claims, is not the work of thousands of scientists, but rather the work of a few dozen like minded individuals, not all scientists, many politicians, who write the summary reports that get all the attention. We have a cadre of “climate scientists” (although I use the term loosely) who coauthor and “peer review” each others work in a virtual echo chamber, who refuse to share their data and methods, who make copious mistakes, either accidentally or more likely deliberately (and Wang and Mann both have shown strong evidence of deliberate data manipulation and fraudulent practices), who then smear anyone who points this out, and who keep pushing things that have been discredited. Mann’s RealClimate site has been caught in numerous lies and deliberate distortions, something I’ve never seen Pielke or McIntyre do.

      So, a UN panel, doing political not scientific work, writes the document, in coordination with a very few researchers who’s livelihood depends on research grants from these same like minded government and international agencies, who collude and actively and aggressively attempt to suppress the work of the evil “deniers” and who manipulate an all too willing media to attempt to foist a massive redistribution of wealth on the world, and you think the word hoax or fraud is not applicable? Gotcha. 8-|

    18. Great White Rat says:

      Sev reminds us:

      We have the IPCC which, contrary to claims, is not the work of thousands of scientists, but rather the work of a few dozen like minded individuals, not all scientists, many politicians, who write the summary reports that get all the attention.

      Supporting Sev’s claim is the IPCC’s own mandate, which states:

      The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. The IPCC does not carry out research nor does it monitor climate related data or other relevant parameters.

      Notice two things: first, AGW is a forgone conclusion to them; second, they don’t do science. All of which means that IPCC is a political group, not a scientific group. They can decide what data and statistics support their political objectives – or what data can be distorted to support them – and ignore anything else. Unsurprisingly, they try to screen out distinguished scientists who might dispute their findings (one particularly blatant example here). Science? No. Politics? Yes.

      So what’s left? The Goracle? Maybe the AGW crowd missed the British court ruling pointing out the errors in his crockumentary and characterizing it as a broadly political piece of work. Again…science? No. Politics? Yes.

      In fact, if you peel away the faux-science veneer from all the AGW proponents, what you find is a Luddite with a thirst for state control of everything. They’re not concerned with the environment so much as they are with power – otherwise they’d be concentrating their efforts on countries like China, which has no concern for climate or environmental protection at all. The AGW movement is just a poor attempt to steal the good name of real scientific inquiry and use it to hide another attack on the free market system that’s made us the most prosperous nation in history. They’d gladly see our standard of living go in the tank if it meant they’d be able to dictate to us.

      Oh, except for the preferred politically correct people, of course. al-Gore and the noted climatologist Leonardo diCaprio won’t have to give up their Gulfstreams. But you might be expected to bicycle to work, if they have their way.

    19. Severian says:

      One of the things I find most upsetting about the entire AGW and IPCC fiasco is that it detracts from serious problems that need serious solutions. Take, for example, issues of local microclimate/weather. Look at the rainfall patterns in Australia due to the rabbit fence and local agriculture. That’s an issue that needs serious attention, study, and perhaps action. Take urban heat island effects, which can and do make life in large cities miserable in the summer. Instead of trying to address these issues, study them in depth, without bias, and come up with approaches to modify the design and layout of cities and building codes to mitigate UHI effects, we are spending billions of dollars a year, or more, in a vain attempt to drop global average temperatures a few tenths of a degree, something that will be unnoticeable even if it were possible.

      Add to that the impact on dirt poor third world countries, which will be denied cheap energy (read fossil fuels) in order to salve the conscience of Western environmental hypocrites who care nothing for the impact of their policies on the real poor of the world. Life without ample and affordable energy is brutal, unpleasant, and usually short. All the while we have greens telling the poor suffering masses that they really are happier there living as noble savages while they retire to their air conditioned SUVs on the way to the coffee shop. How dare the third worlders try and use DDT to stop the plague of malaria that is killing millions! It’s easy to make these kinds of biased, elitist, self indulgent decisions when it’s not your children being killed by preventable diseases and poverty.

      And herein lies the reason I am so repulsed by the pro-AGW trolls and sheep, it’s the willful ignorance coupled with the character assassination that makes a mockery of what science should be. It’s the lack of concern for what the effects of their actions truly are, the disdain and lack of concern for the people who really get the short end of the stick in these kinds of issues. And the deliberate misuse of both science and money to chase AGW rainbows instead of focusing our limited resources on issues that are truly serious and perhaps even solvable.

    20. BrianR says:

      Sev re#17:

      Firstly, who is in this cabal planning to take over the world? If they are so powerful, why not do this with staged terrorism, global war, manipulating economic markets or the like? Wouldn’t that be more effective? So, the IPCC, which was created in 1988, has been in on this from the beginning?

      the work of a few dozen like minded individuals, not all scientists, many politicians, who write the summary reports that get all the attention

      Secondly, you are complaining that policy experts are involved in writing a report called “Summary for Policy Makers”?

      Thirdly, I think you ought to attend an annual meeting like AGU (American Geophysical Union) to see how scientists interact. We are constantly trying to tear each other’s hypotheses down (with data/results, not rhetoric, of course). This myth of “like-minded” scientists is plain wrong. The competitive nature of it is, I think, beneficial to science (much like it is beneficial for markets and economies). Go to a meeting like this and see hundreds of presenations, talk to thousands of climate scientists, and you’ll understand why an organization like that (50,000 members) has backed the IPCC conclusions. They are debating the details and complexities, no doubt, but the big picture is established.

      Finally…you can dispense with the “gotcha” nonsense…maybe most people that come here are in it for the jib-jabbing and fun of debate. I’m actually here to discuss this. Thanks.

    21. BrianR says:

      It’s easy to make these kinds of biased, elitist, self indulgent decisions when it’s not your children being killed by preventable diseases and poverty.

      I wholeheartedly agree.
      I am definitely not a fan of the most irrational environmentalist spoutings. They annoy the crap out of me. I am not a fan of the Kyoto protocol…I think it’s a horrible way to address the problem. It is wrong to think that all who accept the conclusions of the climate science community are all one, monolithic entity. As with most things, it’s far more complex.

      But, I think people don’t like to accept complexity…they like it simple. It’s “them” vs. “us”. This is not constructive…but, hey that’s just me.

    22. Severian says:

      Well Brian, I do attend various scientific conferences, and what you say is often true. It can be a full contact sport at times. It’s the complete lack of this kind of honest and open debate, the hypocritical labeling of dissenters from the consensus as deniers and such, that is repressive, and completely against what science is supposed to represent. The entire IPCC is founded on an a priori assumption that climate change is being driven by CO2 in general, and anthropomorphic CO2 in particular, and data and papers and people who don’t fit that assumption are seldom allowed to contribute.

      The simple fact is that I have never, to this date, seen any definitive proof worthy of merit of CO2’s forcing numbers that form the basis for this whole hoopla, that are the underpinning of the GCMs, are correct. I see an assumption of forcing, but no convincing validation. And then on top of that positive feedbacks are assumed, which have never been shown to be true, and if they were would have doomed life on this ball millions of years ago, again unproven, but which create results used by international NGOs and governments to rationalize massive wealth redistribution schemes called carbon cap and trade.

      When this hoopla all started I was measuring atmospheric optical effects in support of optical phase conjugation work. Based on my own modeling and observation, the whole idea of a doubling or tripling of CO2 increasing temperatures by whole degrees didn’t make any sense due to what I know is the logarithmic nature of the absorption curve, and the overlap with other gases. To this date I have not seen convincing data that this will happen, only overly hysterical conclusions from GCMs that are quirky at best, and too often the result of a computer modeler who has mistaken their model for reality. And yes, I do read the papers themselves not the “denier” websites. I am a practicing physicist and computer modeler myself. Transmission of near and far IR thru the atmosphere is a subject I have done extensive work on and which I believe I understand quite well.

      As for the “cabal” just open your eyes, there are tons of people and organizations hanging their hopes of implementing their agendas on this, from the anti-capitalist types, to corporations who think it will give them an advantage over others. It’s naive in the extreme to not recognize that many different interests contribute to this brew, all of which believe they can use it to their advantage, from average scientists who just want funding for their pet projects and don’t care about the global ramifications to anti-capitalist and anti-Western and yes, anti-US political animals who are using this to drive their own agendas of control.

      I repeat it again, CO2 is not a pollutant, and is not the primary driver of the relatively mild warming we’ve seen since the end of the Little Ice Age (the magnitude of which is in doubt due to gross errors in temperature measurements). Spending trillions of dollars on CO2 will do nothing but bankrupt societies and result in a lower standard of living, and less capacity to respond to whatever climate change occurs. And all the while this entire global warming climate change boondoggle steals dollars from more important, more real, and more addressable issues. I’m glad to see that you recognize some of this, but unsure of why you seem to support the AGW consensus in light of your alleged distaste for irrational environmentalists.

      I would suggest, knowing real scientists as I do, particularly university animals, that the reason they endorse the IPCC is it guarantees continued and significant funding. Government money has corrupted modern science in ways that are unpleasant in the extreme. And even as more and more good science is being done that undermines CO2s role in all of this, which calls into doubt the entire AGW premise, I see the politicians, media, NGOs, and a ton of biased scientists wailing that there is a rock solid consensus and we have to move now now now to implement the latest Ponzi scheme de jour. Scientists are shouted down, libeled, smeared, and ignored solely because they dare to challenge the “consensus” and are attempting to upset the funding applecart. It’s disgusting and repulsive, dishonest and unethical, and whether you realize it or not, whether you are personally benefiting from it or not, it’s happening, and you have to be blind if you don’t see it. The more research that comes out undermining the consensus, the more panicked and hysterical the pro-AGW groupthink minions get and the more they push to ram all of their agendas down everyones throat before the wheels fall off the bus completely. Already about half a dozen coal fired power plants have had their permits for construction rejected in this country, despite the fact they are clean, safe, and the energy is desperately needed. The fratricide from this is already hurting people in this country and around the world and it’s high time for it to stop and the Emperor to realize he has no clothes.

    23. BrianR says:

      I’m glad to see that you recognize some of this, but unsure of why you seem to support the AGW consensus in light of your alleged distaste for irrational environmentalists.

      Irrationality is opportunistic. Just because neo-nazi white supremacists think non-white immigrants are poisoning our country, doesn’t mean there’s not an immigration problem. Just because some take things to extremes, doesn’t make the foundation false. I refuse to accept the premise that one has to be completely and totally aligned with every single entity on a particular viewpoint. So, your unsureness of my support is an oversimplification that obfuscates the issue.

      It’s naive in the extreme to not recognize that many different interests contribute to this brew…

      I do realize that. It’s very complex with various groups positioning themselves so they can benefit. Agreed. Your post was about someone claiming AGW is a scam and a hoax. The position of people like Inhofe and his loyalists is of premeditated conspiracy. This is what I’m challenging. But people who seem to be intelligent and rational refuse to disagree with that extreme position based on their ideology. And, yes, it happens on the “other side” too, so you don’t have to point that out to me.

    24. Mwalimu Daudi says:

      Spending trillions of dollars on CO2 will do nothing but bankrupt societies and result in a lower standard of living, and less capacity to respond to whatever climate change occurs.

      Which is exactly why I am convinced that Hillary, Barak, and John Boy will never in a million years put into law any of the wacko environmental schemes they are campaigning for right now. A few cosmetic changes will be made if one of them gets elected, but the key word here is “cosmetic”. Democrats are not the sharpest set of knives in the drawer, but they recognize political suicide when they see it. The peasants can be conned into thinking they are saving the planet by turning off a light now and again, but if you ram Draconian measures down their throats they might rebel.

      We see the same principle at work where politicians and other celebrities (with their lavish lifestyles and gigantic, energy-consuming mansions) jet all over the globe burning who-knows-how-many tons of CO2 telling everyone else that they must cut back. How many of them do you think follow Sheryl Scat-Crow’s “use only one square” advice?

      I predict that if a Democrat gets elected President, within a year we will cease to hear about “global warming” (or “climate change” or whatever the spin-of-the-day is). Remember how quickly “widespread homelessness” and “worst economy since the Great Depression” vanished from MSM news accounts after William Jefferson Clinton was elected in 1992?

    25. forest hunter says:


      Remember how quickly “widespread homelessness” and “worst economy since the Great Depression” vanished from MSM news accounts after William Jefferson Clinton was elected in 1992?

      Didn’t he aid in the reduction (homelessness and the economy) by use of Presidential Pardon? :o