John Coleman's Interview on CNN's "Reliable Sources"
I saw CNN interview The Weather Channel's founder, John Coleman, on its Reliable Sources show this morning. The interviewer, Brian Stelter, did a poor job. The interview is here if you want to watch.
First, Stelter kept insisting Coleman was the "co-" founder of The Weather Channel, even after John corrected him. Stelter never said who the others "founders" were. John was indeed the founder of The Weather Channel. He sold the idea to Landmark Communications which provided the funding to start it and get it on the air. He also called Coleman a "denier" which is a pejorative.
Second, Stelter kept bringing up the thoroughly discredited "97%" number. Here is yet the latest piece to disprove the 97%. It concludes:
In sum, one of the most visible climate papers of recent years is not sound. Whereas previous critique could be interpreted as a lack of competence (Tol, 2014a), the later data release suggests that Cook et al., perhaps inadvertently, worked towards a given answer. This reflects badly on the authors, referees, editors and publisher. It also weakens the activists and politicians who cite Cook et al. in support of their position.
The author of the above is Dr. Richard Tol who is not a global warming skeptic. Instead of letting Coleman talk, Stelter kept bringing up the 97% and other irrelevancies.
Finally, instead of having a scientist on the "pro-" global warming side, they had David Kenny, the CEO of the Weather Channel and its parent company. Mr. Kenny is not a scientist (and doesn't claim to be). Even after watching, I wasn't sure of the point of having him on.
For the record, I don't agree with several of John's contentions. But, if you are going to invite a guest on an interview show, you should allow him or her to speak, have your facts correct, and be respectful. Mr. Stelter clearly failed in that regard.
First, Stelter kept insisting Coleman was the "co-" founder of The Weather Channel, even after John corrected him. Stelter never said who the others "founders" were. John was indeed the founder of The Weather Channel. He sold the idea to Landmark Communications which provided the funding to start it and get it on the air. He also called Coleman a "denier" which is a pejorative.
Second, Stelter kept bringing up the thoroughly discredited "97%" number. Here is yet the latest piece to disprove the 97%. It concludes:
In sum, one of the most visible climate papers of recent years is not sound. Whereas previous critique could be interpreted as a lack of competence (Tol, 2014a), the later data release suggests that Cook et al., perhaps inadvertently, worked towards a given answer. This reflects badly on the authors, referees, editors and publisher. It also weakens the activists and politicians who cite Cook et al. in support of their position.
The author of the above is Dr. Richard Tol who is not a global warming skeptic. Instead of letting Coleman talk, Stelter kept bringing up the 97% and other irrelevancies.
Finally, instead of having a scientist on the "pro-" global warming side, they had David Kenny, the CEO of the Weather Channel and its parent company. Mr. Kenny is not a scientist (and doesn't claim to be). Even after watching, I wasn't sure of the point of having him on.
For the record, I don't agree with several of John's contentions. But, if you are going to invite a guest on an interview show, you should allow him or her to speak, have your facts correct, and be respectful. Mr. Stelter clearly failed in that regard.
Comments
Post a Comment