The Station That Was Formerly Known As The Weather Channel

weather channel propagandaWant the weather report without a sermon? Just need to know if it’s going to rain tomorrow and hope to find out without being hectored? Looking for a forecast, not a lecture? Then the Weather Channel is probably the place to avoid.

The Associated Press said Monday that the Weather Channel is taking an “active stance on climate change.” It will feature “the voices of 25 prominent people talking about the need to take action on climate change.”

The message, says the AP, “is unmistakable and is consciously designed to reach people who may be doubters about the causes of global warming.”

Making this story more interesting than it should be is the counterposition of John Coleman, meteorologist and a co-founder of the Weather Channel. He doesn’t buy the line that man is overheating his planet. A few years back, Coleman even produced a television documentary series called “Global Warming: The Other Side.” Now he has to watch his creation turned from a forecasting service into a propaganda tool.

But Coleman, who is no longer part of the Weather Channel, is not bitter.

“They certainly have the right to have an editorial perspective,” Coleman told the AP. “I feel it’s stupid, scientifically wrong, and it’s a great disservice. But there is freedom of speech.”

Yes, there is that, and we defend everyone’s right to speak their minds, even if what comes out is useless blather.

In the meantime, though, we think we’ll just get our weather forecasts from our smartphones. They won’t give us unwanted and unneeded editorial comment.


Comments (5)

  • Avatar

    Harry Dale Huffman


    “…it’s stupid, scientifically wrong, and it’s a great disservice.”

    It is criminally incompetent then, if not criminal, because the overwhelming evidence against global warming and the entire consensus climate science has been available for several years now, especially the Venus/Earth temperatures vs. pressure comparison I revealed in 2010, which disproves the universally-promoted “greenhouse effect” (and should have been done, and the greenhouse effect dropped from science, more than 20 years ago). The problem now is political propaganda promulgating the false consensus, but the underlying problem is that climate science is a failure and all of the “expert” climate and atmospheric scientists are incompetently refusing to heed the contrary evidence and question their false theories. I boil it all down to one sentence, which will be the final judgment upon the current generation: There is no valid climate science, and no competent climate scientists (not least, because they habitually confuse local and transient processes with the global climate, despite the latter being defined only as the global mean surface temperature (which, most fundamentally, they do not measure competently).

    • Avatar



      Agreed, moreover :

      No one has ever explained how Venus radiates into interplanetary space more energy than it receives from the Sun.

  • Avatar



    Thanks in part to [i]The Weather Channel[/i] the default cause of [b]every[/b] undesired natural phenomena is now global climate change.

    Imagine the human disservice and malfeasance being done in the name of science – under the banner of global climate change! It’s as if we’ve tossed out modern medicine and differential diagnosis in favor of the old custom of blaming every human malady on “excess blood”. Still, the current-day bloodletting continues with the daily imposition of more carbon taxes and hyper-regulation.

  • Avatar

    Dan Pangburn


    Science proves that CO2 has no significant effect on climate. The proof and identification of the two factors that do cause reported climate change are at (now with 5-year running-average smoothing of measured average global temperature (AGT), the near-perfect explanation of AGT, R^2 = 0.97+ since before 1900)

    A graph at this site, constructed using data up thru 2012, predicts the trend to 2020, and, depending on what the sun does, to 2037. Reported measurements through 2014 are within historical limits.

    The method/equation therein allows prediction of temperature trends using data up to any date. The predicted temperature anomaly trend in 2020 calculated using data to 1990, actual sunspot numbers through 2012, and predicted sunspot numbers 2013-2020 is within 0.011 K of the trend in 2020 calculated using data through 2012. The predictions after 2020 depend on sunspot predictions which are not available past 2020.

    • Avatar



      Oh come on Dan!


      How could [b]the sun[/b] have anything to do with earth temperatures? What kind of nut are you?

      Any civilized and nuanced intellectual knows that CO2 drives [i]everything[/i]. The sun barely plays any role whatsoever in temperature or climate and should be dropped from any model of weather or climate prediction.

      We need to silence neanderthal deniers like you before you do more damage to the cause! 😉

Comments are closed