Weather channel has been in nbc/msnbc’s back pocket for some time now. I’ve seen ‘em shoehorn politics into their weather reporting on may occasions.
Keep in mind - The Weather Channel is a sister network of the Clinton News Network (CNN).
Hey, weather organizations are BETTING HEAVILY on the hoax of man-made GW to generate “watching hype” -— they will take ANY SCAM and support it if it makes money. No matter how fraudulent it is.
Global Warming fits the MSM agenda nicely.
Just those words are enough. You can leave out “man made”, “harmful”, “temporary” and other descriptors that would change the meaning.
Just say “global warming” or “immigration”.
Didn’t they learn anything in 2016?
I am SOOOO glad that Verizon FiOS told The Weather Channel to take a hike and removed TWC from its service. Why should Verizon’s customers pay for TWC’s propaganda and lies.
the founder of the weather channel, John Coleman, says global warming is a hoax. Wonder why the article doesn’t mention that?
“Cherry-picking and twisting the facts will not change the future, nor the fact note: fact, not opinion that the earth is warming.
Nor will it change the fact that there’s very little empirical evidence that said warming is all or even mostly anthropogenic.
As for cherry-picking and twisting the facts: Ben Santer, Tom Karl, and you sweetie-pie, need to look in the mirror.
What is in dispute, by reputable climate researchers, is:
1) How much warming. The historical data has been revised and 'corrected' downward several times over the past ten years, giving the appearance of more warming in the present than the original raw data suggested. And
2) What is the cause of the warming. We now have over 20 years of computer modeling of the effects of CO2 induced warming, and the actual numbers have fallen far short of all of the predictions.
Founder of the Weather Channel, John Coleman Debunks the Myth of Global Warming
https://www.youtube.com/v/D8FhmuWWcGw
I don’t think, Kait Parker, is still with The Weather Channel. She had a contract dispute last year. I maybe wrong.
The Weather Channel—they’re the ones that give silly names to snowstorms.
The science in this instance was done by Hendrk Svensmark with 10 years of laboratory experiments. His book “The Chilling Stars” proves that our climate is determined by an interaction between the solar wind and cosmic radiation from the Milky Way which our solar system is in.
I was not aware that the “Weather Channel” actually covered weather? I thought they just had reality shows and displayed you-tube videos in between having the presenters chat with each.
quote “science doesnt care about your opinion”
oh really? what about the “science” paid for by the tobacco companies in the 50’s and 60’s which stated that not only was smoking not bad for you.. but that is was “good” for you?
oh! so ... THAT kind of science is bad?
ok... what if we only look at “science” on polution and climate paid for by energy companies?
oh! so... THAT kind of science isn’t to be trusted either!
AMAZING!
ok.. then.... WHY IN THE HELL should we believe the “science” paid for, conducted, and modeled by environmentalists?
You think environmentalists are any more unbiased than the scientists paid with tobacco or energy company dollars?
BS
It is sad that a bunch of liberal arts majors think they are scientists.
It is only a ‘theory’ until it is proved otherwise.
And the emails uncovered proved it was based on scientific HOAX.
As a scientist, there are different levels of bad.
1) looking at data and making incorrect assessment. THIS IS NORMAL And EXPECTED and it is why you have peer-review. Everyone can make a mistake. You can fix it and learn something.
2) Ignoring data that does not fit your pre-defined notions or desired conclusions. This is scientific fraud, and you should be fired for it. But other people can see the entire data set and fix it.
3) Deleting data that does not fit the theory that you want.
This is horrifying- because you cannot fix it. The data is gone. Your results are incorrect, but you deleted any data that did not agree, in order to make it look correct.
This forces people to act on incorrect data, spending billions of dollars, on false claims. Doing the opposite of what needs to be done. This should result in jail time.
The scientists that perpetrated the Global Warming (now in new and improved “climate change”) deleted data that did not fit the theory they wanted. And they corrupted the data that they DID have to exxagerate results (the ‘hockey stick’ graph.)
Given one of the founders of the Weather Channel has basically said the same thing... I think I’ll not worry about what the Weather Channel which makes money off promoting this thing has to say...
While he can’t clean house at The Weather Channel, I hope he does at NASA. The original Space Race vs. the USSR was real and had some military implications to it while the race to colonize Mars seems to be based on the human race’s failure to “save the planet” and to save ourselves from ourselves. A manned mission to Mars shouldn’t need to have a false pretense for supporting it’s overall justification and feasibility. Climate change is just something to observe and monitor because it’s more interesting than it is a global crisis. It will happen no matter what we do here on this planet. When we go to Mars, we should be going simply because it is there. If we were to go under false pretenses, it would forever be on the wrong side of history.
We are supposed to have record lows overnight in Atlanta
Hurricane season a bust. Tornado season a bust. Sunspot activity at a standstill.
It ain’t global warming we need to worry about. Think mini ice age