Conservative Weatherman who called Global Warming a HOAX has DIED!!!

83 y/o Weather Channel co-founder Jack Coleman and the original meteorologist on ABC's Good Morning America has died.

He grew anger after his open skepticism on climate change being man-made and called it a HOAX!!

He died in Las Vegas said his wife, Linda who didn't say how he died.

The Texas native got his first TV job while a student at the University of Illinois and worked at several local stations in Chicago and the midwest

He was hired at GMA's first weatherman when it launched in 1975 and stayed there for 7 years where he then founded the Weather Channel, the first 24/7 weather network serving as CEO before leaving due to internal friction

He grew anger during the later years of his career for his doubts that humans caused global warming which he called a "hoax" and "scam". He chastized the national media for reporting on it from an "environmental point of view and their continuing liberal, political agenda".

His stance caused him to drop out of the American Meteorological Society

Do you think global warming is a "hoax" by liberals??

Jack - Deceased

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2018/01/22/12/48744F1E00000578-5295197-image-a-1_1516624845442.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2018/01/22/12/486A84AE00000578-5295197-image-a-2_1516624851885.jpg

Well, he was ancient. Pretty sure you can't blame this one on global warming.

That's "John" Coleman. Get your shit right, Ducky.

I worked with him, but only for a little while. He retired soon after I started. Even if you disagreed with his view, he was a really great guy. One of the best.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2018/01/22/12/48744F1E00000578-5295197-image-a-1_1516624845442.jpg

And I find it hilarious that I have those two chairs on the right in my apartment right now!

Something I've never understood: even if climate change is a hoax, wouldn't it still be beneficial to cut down on pollution, regardless? Pollution is still bad, even if it doesn't cause climate change.

Golden Road posted...

Something I've never understood: even if climate change is a hoax, wouldn't it still be beneficial to cut down on pollution, regardless? Pollution is still bad, even if it doesn't cause climate change.

Of course, but at what cost? At some point, you need to decide what you're willing to sacrifice in exchange for less pollution. Is it worth putting hundreds of thousands of people out of work? Is it worth crippling the financial well being of areas whose economy relies on these technologies?

Are we going to outlaw all use of vehicles running on combustion engines?

Snuggletoof posted...

Of course, but at what cost? At some point, you need to decide what you're willing to sacrifice in exchange for less pollution. Is it worth putting hundreds of thousands of people out of work? Is it worth crippling the financial well being of areas whose economy relies on these technologies?

Are we going to outlaw all use of vehicles running on combustion engines?

Nice fear mongering, bro.

Snuggletoof posted...

Golden Road posted...

Something I've never understood: even if climate change is a hoax, wouldn't it still be beneficial to cut down on pollution, regardless? Pollution is still bad, even if it doesn't cause climate change.

Of course, but at what cost? At some point, you need to decide what you're willing to sacrifice in exchange for less pollution. Is it worth putting hundreds of thousands of people out of work? Is it worth crippling the financial well being of areas whose economy relies on these technologies?

Are we going to outlaw all use of vehicles running on combustion engines?

All we have to do, is stop being scared shitless of nuclear.

Its not a hoax when its the consensus of the scientific community, and backed up by empirical evidence.

MirMiros posted...

Its not a hoax when its the consensus of the scientific community, and backed up by empirical evidence.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html#Update2

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/#9f87828485dd

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2014/02/prweb11550514.htm

https://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/97_Consensus_Myth.pdf

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/#182acc7b3f9f

https://www.skepticalscience.com/debunking-climate-consensus-denial.html

I find it funny that in posting a bunch of ultra conservative sources, you actually posted a source that does say climate change is real, is caused by humans, and questions the consensus denials.

Also, posting a paper that tries to lend credence or support, no matter how small, to the idea that the moon landing was faked, or that the earth is flat, isn't good for your argument

pretty petty duckbear