Talk:John Coleman (meteorologist)

news

• Weather Channel Founder: Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’ --Striver - talk 12:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Degree

In what subject did Coleman receive his degree? I can't find anything. Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC) -Thank you! I was wondering the same thing. This article makes not mention of his education, does he even have any???

This source [1] lists him as COM which I assume is commerce.JQ (talk) 21:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Communications. 91.15.125.100 (talk) 21:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced views

• However, he has expressed hope that Gore will be sued for fraud, because he has allegedly sold carbon credits which he knew to be worthless.
• Coleman is of the opinion that a debate on Global Warming should be pursued as his expertise as a meteorologist and scientist is in conflict with the assertions that Vice President Gore makes in his oscar-winning documentary "An Inconvenient Truth". Gore has turned down the challenge to debate Coleman claiming "The debate on Global Warming is over." Coleman claims that Gore's movie is based on junk-science and that "Global Warming Alarmism" is some ploy for purposes that are anything but science.

Unless there is a source for these they should be deleted. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The user inserting this passage is a vandal who has expressed a wish for a permanent ban. Maybe an admin could oblige.JQ (talk) 20:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Inaccurate/incomplete biography of John Coleman -- Newscaster

As currently presented, this article is inaccurate, incomplete and misleading. The article needs to be modified to contain critical lacking information, more about which is said below. Mr. Coleman's principal claim to fame resides in the fact that he has been an extremely vocal and outspoken critic of anthropogenic global warming. He has appeared on numerous TV shows and written several articles on this topic, where he has stridently attacked the notion of anthropogenic global warming. His articles and media appearances have garnered much public attention and reaction, and have been used by many in support of the proposition that anthropogenic global warming is a "scam." What is missing from the article, however, is the important fact that Mr. Coleman has no scientific, technical or engineering training or education (he has a degree in journalism), and possesses no expertise in climatology other than having read meteorological forecasts on TV prepared by others. This is critical information of which the public should be aware when assessing the efficacy and accuracy of Mr. Coleman's strong claims, who essentially holds himself out to the pubic as an "expert" on meteorology and climatology despite the fact that he is neither. In fact, Mr. Coleman's technical and scientific background is so weak that he could not today obtain certification by the American Meterology Society (AMS) as a Certified Broadcast Meteorologist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tundraline (talk • contribs) 14:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

So are there verifiable, reliable sources that he has no science training? That should be easy to find from a reliable source if it's the case. (Not some blog or something — we're talking about meeting WP:BLP standards here.) The claim that he wouldn't pass AMS certification would be especially hard to establish WP:verifiability for unless it is sourced from a truly well-established expert who has said so and himself has the credibility to be critiquing other people. --Closeapple (talk) 06:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

It is well established that Mr. Coleman earned a degree in journalism. I am unaware, and there is no public record, of Mr. Coleman possessing any academic certifications or qualifications in addition to his journalism degree. Moreover, I am unaware of any journalism program anywhere in the USA that requires students to take courses in science, engineering or even mathematics. A degree in journalism is a liberal arts degree, and confers no technical knowledge or training. Being that the preceding is by all appearances, and according to publicly available information, the case, Mr. Coleman could not today even sit for the AMS broadcaster's certification exam, which requires a certain minimum number of semester hours of coursework in meteorology or related disciplines. If Mr. Coleman nevertheless possesses technical training or a technical background of some sort that has somehow escaped the public eye, he should post it here on the page devoted to his biography so that we the public can be better informed about his background and perhaps arrive at the presently unfounded conclusion that Mr. Coleman is qualified to present a credible opinion about anthropogenic global warming.

I'm sorry to be the messenger of reality but John Coleman's claim to fame is a fifty two year career of putting his public credibility on the line every day with a reasonably correct weather forecast. Not, as you would imply, some sudden jumping on a bandwagon that challenges an ideological belief that is reaching fascist levels of reinforcement in the face of mounting doubt and evidence that this so called scientific process is inherently rigged. Coleman's interest in this is surely similar to mine- saving the planet from people who are pushing this at rush speed along with Kyoto and Cap and Trade schemes that have so far only accelerated the industrialization of third world nations with corrupt governments like China and India- the result? MORE conventional pollution, MORE GG emissions, and MORE people living industrialized lifestyles than before Kyoto was implemented. The jig is up and whatever the motivation was, cashing in on grants from companies like Siemens as the CRU pursued, or just sheer ignorance following the Green mantra they were selling as they cashed in, those of us who know the score are not going to be silent any longer.

I wish I could find print documentation of it, but I'm pretty sure I heard Coleman say, on the air circa year 2000, that San Diego has the worst TV weather forecasters in the US, but that they could get away with it because to forecast the next day's weather in San Diego you need only give today's weather conditions and nail it most of the time.Tomligon (talk) 14:25, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

The planet is being ruined alright. Humans in fear of living and those pointing fingers all have ulterior motives. As for Coleman lacking postgraduate degrees I guess you forgot there is a saying that "those who can't do, teach". All those decades he was out getting his hands dirty in his field, not in the protective environment of a University exchanging emails with colleagues conspiring to expel anyone who opposed them. If Coleman didn't know climate he'd not have a show and I would bet he hasn't taken the test for that certificate on his wall because he doesn't need to buy the window dressing of professional society credentials- as often as not located in a strip mall or PO box. Go to Coleman's Corner as linked in the article and see his historical account of Roger Revelle and Al Gore if you want to impeach someone's credibility. Do you care about Gore's bio?Batvette (talk) 05:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Most TV weathermen are merely personable people who read weather forecasts prepared by others. They have no expertise in climate science. Coleman's major claim to fame is his declarations that Global Climate Change is a hoax. His talks on that have been called illogical and uninformed with comical errors and have been rebutted. Smears on Al Gore may find support with a certain segment of the American public but are not factual debate. Some mention of the controversial nature of his claims should be made. Elemming (talk) 14:35, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Given that he has no formal training in meteorology, should the title "meteorologist" not be changed to "weather reporter" or some such? There are actual meteorology programs at universities. He was trained as a journalist.Jlooman (talk) 12:19, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[User Jlooman]

Large following

The article claims his views have found a 'large following' but see my hidden comment for why I fact tagged the sentence [2] Nil Einne (talk) 09:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the more accurate analysis might be John Coleman is joining and possibly leading a LARGE MOVEMENT. Those of us with the audacity to think with our heads, not our hearts. Batvette (talk) 05:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Poorly referenced claims

This claim "Coleman has no education in the field of climate change. Coleman sees himself as an expert on weather (albeit a journalism degree), not on climate or climate change.[7][8]" - links to blog posts.

Surely random blog posts shouldn't be the basis of a such a bold claim about his education and academic suitability for making statements about climate change.

Additionally "Coleman has no education in the field of climate change" is more of an opinion that a statement. Are there any widly recognised bachelors degrees, or post grads in climate change? Sure there are plenty of researchers working on climate change, and it would be fair to say that My Coleman has not published papers on climate change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.145.234 (talk) 10:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

More important than the fact that he has not published any academic works regarding any topic on the climate or weather is the fact that there is no verifiable record of him undertaking a formal education, to any extent, in climate science or any related field, or a verifiable record of him exhibiting expertise in any atmospheric science.216.96.229.110 (talk) 13:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of what degrees he has or what he is published, why should that be used as proof against his climate change denial arguments? That is extremely biased. One can cite sources that CLAIM he is incorrect, but they can't outright state that his degree or lack of degree is proof for his claims. Wikipedia is supposed to be unbiased (obviously not true, but it is the goal) and so it is not supposed to frame articles in a way that disputes what he is saying directly, but at most, cite other sources who dispute him (which itself is generally biased but there's nothing one can do about that because that is what is "notable"). Stating he is a "climate change denier" is enough to show that what he believes is not necessarily held by everyone. There is no need to go further and try to disparage his reputation within the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.164.115.33 (talk) 15:44, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Education and Expertise

I added back the line about his education and expertise. Both of which are based on his own words and have proper REFs. His education is in journalism and he himself has stated that he is a "mere TV weatherman" who has "read dozens of scientific papers", "talked with numerous scientists", and "studied" this issue. He is not an expert but the other paragraphs before seem to imply he is by his reports and followers. This is improper and NPOV based on previous editors. This line tries to makes the full section more neutral and not biased toward this field or implied expertise. --Sallynice (talk) 14:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I've removed it again because I see it as a violation of WP:BLP where we must default to leaving material out.
Like I said in the edit summary, one reference went to a Wikipedia mirror, and one to a political blog that can in no way be considered a reliable source. The remaining references may support the basic facts from that paragraph, however putting them together in that way to reduce his credibility with regards to his views on climate change is clear original research.
If there is a reliable source making that exact point, that he has no education/expertise in the field of climate change and for that reason his opinion is not useful then we can add it. But we mustn't attempt to draw this conclusion ourselves. Amalthea 14:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I added another REF that is HIS paper and he admits he is not a Exp and also still adds more backup to his ED. And it is not a violation of WP:BLP as it is REF and makes the sectio Net --Sallynice (talk) 14:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Quote to me where this new ref says that his credibility is reduced because he is not an expert on climate change. Amalthea 14:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Quote to me where in the Wiki page it says he has no credibility? The line simple makes that section neutral. His claim to fame is how outspoken he is in Global warming but he admits that is not his expertise. He says he bases it on layman’s research. --Sallynice (talk) 14:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:BLP/N#John Coleman (news weathercaster). And FWIW, removal of poorly sourced contentious material that violates WP:BLP is exempt from WP:3RR. Amalthea 15:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Sallynice, I agree with Amalthea 100% that the following text is inappropriate for a BLP, as it speaks in Wikipedia's voice and is really just synthesis/original research:

Coleman has no education in the field of climate change. Coleman sees himself as an expert on weather (albeit a journalism degree in 1957 from the University of Illinois), not on climate or climate change.

However, it may be reasonable to add a brief mention to that subsection that there are critics who take issue with Coleman in that regard. For example, perhaps something like this:

Critics of Coleman's views such as ThinkProgress and the Centrist Party have questioned Coleman's lack of academic credentials and charge that he has not conducted actual research in the area of climate change.

In such fashion, we only inform the reader that others have criticized Coleman in that regard, and leave it to the reader to follow those references if they want to know more. Just a suggestion... I'd recommend getting Amalthea's input on that before actually inserting it. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Something like that could be fine. I have never been against changing or update just the removal of the entire piece. When Coleman himself tried scrubbing the whole section I made mention I wanted him to come back and help edit it. I still wish he would as Wiki has little to no info on how he was removed from “The Weather Channel” and that was the whole reason I was drawn to his page in the first place. I think the whole GW section needs work, and would love to expand on the Weather Channel part as well, but do not like to make sweeping changes without consent of others.--Sallynice (talk) 19:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks like Almathea is going on a short wikibreak and will probably be back in a few days. I also noticed that this article has been placed on lockdown for three days (6 FEB 2012). Perhaps it would be best to make your proposed changes here on the Talk Page in the interim, giving others a chance to comment and edit. Then when the lockdown expires, there may be consensus to implement them. AzureCitizen (talk) 21:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

References

Reporting ThinkProgress blog post

I recently edited the "Views on global warming" section to improve the <ref>s. I also noticed major problems with this paragraph:

Critics of Colman’s have questioned his lack of academic credentials, journalism degree, and charge that he has not conducted actual research in the area of climate change.

• There is only one critic: singular, not plural.
• That critics is a blogger at a deeply hostile website. Hostile blogs in a WP:BLP?
• The blog post does not mention "journalism".
• Nor does it mention "academic credentials".
• "Research"? Not there either.
• The post (dated 11-Nov-2007) is reacting to Coleman's ‘Greatest Scam in History’ essay, discussed in the first para of the section.

So I moved the mention of the ThinkProgress blog item to the first para, and changed it to

A blogger writing for the liberal website, ThinkProgress, responded by questioning his lack of academic credentials in "climate change science".

Subsequently, 72.196.235.207 (talk · contribs) restored the previous wording in the previous place (along with 3 irrelevant refs). I've now undone that edit. I believe my version is neutral and factual, while the previous version was inaccurate and POV. In fact, I suspect using the ThinkProgress blog post is a BLP violation, even when we accurately summarize it.

Any comments? CWC 18:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Neither of the references include anything related to the statement that Coleman has not conducted any research into climate change. To the contrary, the Guardian article explicitly refutes that claim by including quotes affirming that Coleman has, in fact, researched the matter. The validity of that research is a separate matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:240:8480:4110:E421:6362:8142:1447 (talk) 22:18, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Material added by Sagredo

Last May, User:Sagredo added a paragraph to the "Views on global warming" section noting the mainstream view on the subject and explaining the difference between a TV weatherman and a climatologist. This was appropriate, and brought the page into line with core Wikipedia policy, which says that coverage of conspiracy theories like Coleman's should include a prominent description of the mainstream reception of those conspiracy theories. Recent edits by an IP editor and User:Collect have removed most or all of this material, leaving three short paragraphs uncritically reporting Coleman's views and one sentence (or nothing) pointing the reader to more mainstream views. It would be better to delete the article than leave such a flagrant violation of WP:WEIGHT in place. - Cal Engime (talk) 20:20, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Such stuff belongs in the articles on that topic and not inserted into BLPs where the material is gratuitous and of dubious relevance. Additionally, the material about "real people have degrees in meteorology and he has one in journalism" is UNDUE - we do not know what other courses he took, nor that he is unfamiliar with science, which is the obvious implication being made. Material in BLPs is supposed to be a dispassionate biography which is why they are called "biographies" and not "essays on how good or evil a person is." If you wish to have this material in this BLP, then start an RfC for it and state why it is relevant to the BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Desmogblog is not RS for statements of academic credentials, and the rest of the material is not actually about the person who is the topic of the article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Leaving of AMS and why

[Removed sock comments]

This information has been already removed a few times,[3][4][5] by multiple editors because it has no relevance with this article. His views on global warming are important and they have been described. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

The info is just fine. He left the AMS because of Global Warming and the AMS confirmed it. The AMS is the premier meteorological association in the world. Most TV broadcaster don't belong to the AMS. Article also states he won the "Broadcast Meteorologist of the Year" from the AMS. Leaving the major society of your profession would be notable, especially when he won one of their top awards. Bgwhite (talk) 06:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

[Removed sock comment]

I find it clearer that the American Meteorological Society's position on global warming has no bearing on John Coleman's position on the issue and keeping this sentence at the end of this section makes the article appear polemical, as said by one other editor before.[6] There is no consensus to keep it, it looks POV. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 1:14 am, 5 May 2015, Tuesday (9 days ago) (UTC−6)

I have to say it again, these views are irrelevant and AMS has no bearing on Coleman's position. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 3:38 pm, Today (UTC−6)

He won the highest award a broadcast meteorologist can receive from the most prestigious meteorological orginizations in the world. It is highly relevant to say he left the organization, why he left and the organizations stance. Bgwhite (talk) 21:46, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

We don't take sock's comments as any agreement, thus your lone agreement is not enough for this long term opposed edits, at least 6 people have disagreed so far. The view is irrelevant and makes article look polemical, there is no need to put the views of any organization only because it had some connection, it should the be person. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 21:49, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Stop saying they are socks when there has been no confirmation. "Some connection"... The highest award a broadcaster can receive and they renounce it and the organization that gave it to them. Colemen's views on why he left is given too. If a person renounced the Noble prize (Lê Đức Thọ) or an actor renounced an Oscar (George C. Scott), it would be notable to mention. John Coleman's position on climate change is polemical to begin with. Bgwhite (talk) 22:12, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

DoRD had blocked [7] the original poster for block evasion,(block log) thus they are socks. We don't print IMDB award's either if they have been given to any, thus your unnecessary support that came out only my revert on a sock requires some back up. We don't put the views of Noble Prize on any of it's winner. Thus your view is contradictory. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 22:17, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

The AMS award is already on the page and has been for awhile. Again, most prestigious meteorological society... not the same as IMDB. Coleman's views about climate change are already in the article, we aren't adding anything about his views... just why he left. Both Scott's and Lê's political views for not accepting the award is given in the article. Bgwhite (talk) 23:15, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Can you come up with something new and also describe your failure to adhere to WP:TALKDONTREVERT and WP:BRD?

This edit by a particular sock has been removed by 5 different people, thus that edit should not be recognized for any consensus, you make an edit while you were wikihounding[8] and it was reverted because of its irrelevance and misleading approach, thus it would require consensus. I am trying WP:FTN. You are not even understanding what I said, I never talked about him leaving AMS, you are unnecessarily bringing it up similar to the sock above. I said that we should not have views of the organization that have no bearing on Coleman's view. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 00:33, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

You reverted because the IP was "confirmed" sock. NOBODY has confirmed the IP as sock, yet. I reverted because it was not a confirmed sock and also it was the last stable version. This has nothing with TALKDONTREVERT AND BRD. May I remind you the IP had talked and you reverted anyway, thus you violated your own rules you just gave... this was also before any confirmed sock. I said I took responsibility for the edit... socks no longer matter. The article says he won the broadcasting award from the AMS. The TOP award a broadcasting meteorologist can receive. Addition was two sentences... 1) he left the AMS because of his views on AMS's climate change stance. 2) the AMS views on climate change. #2 backs up #1. Again, top award of your profession and why coleman gave it up... which is consistent with his view on climate change.

This is going nowhere. You accuse me of wikihouding, accusing me of only backing sock as my reason for the edit, violation of rules that don't apply and you broke. I'm done if you can only do personal attacks. Take it to WP:DRN. Bgwhite (talk) 00:58, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

IP was blocked as a sock. Giving undue weight to such views is not what we do, we cannot attempt to right a view that would constitute support for a fringe/conspiracy theorist. Do you even know that this article is under WP:AC/DS? Here's the decision: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 01:11, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Stop with the sock, for the last time, I said I take responsibility for the edit. This has nothing to do with fringe theory or any sanctions. There is an entire section in the article about Coleman being a climate change skeptic. Again, sentence #1 says he leaves the AMS because of his skepticism, which gave him the biggest awards. Sentence #2 states AMS' position. Sentence #2 backs #1. Sentence #1 states what is already in the article. There is no undue weight on fringe theory. Stop evading and trying everything you can. Take it to WP:DRN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgwhite (talk • contribs)

I did mentioned WP:FTN already, you didn't saw? Last sentence "The American Meteorological Society has affirmed the theory of global warming" is irrelevant, even the source is not using it the way you are trying to implement it. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 02:52, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Views on climate change

I have removed several items from this section because they are sourced to original broadcasts. This is a biography, it is very important to adhere to Wikipedia policy of reliable independent sourcing. This is especially important when we are pinning obviously insane conspiracy theories on someone. I don't doubt that he is a global warming denier who presents the science on climate change as some massive conspiracy of scientists (an amusing idea, anyone who thinks scientists could conspire in this way has obviously never tried to get any group of scientists to agree on anything, however trivial), but we definitely need to attribute this to reliable independent sources that give context and note the reception among not just his base but also the reality-based community. Guy (Help!) 08:01, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Independent referencing is actually needed. Kusi is a pro Coleman news network and unreliable for referencing. VandVictory (talk) 05:32, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

We are sourcing why Coleman left the AMS. He says that on the video. This is allowed under WP:SELFPUB. Also, KUSI is a television news station that produced both pro and con video on climate change. KUSI is not unreliable. Bgwhite (talk) 05:43, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Such videos cannot be inserted as reference when Coleman was one of the staff members of Kusi, it has to be published by somebody who had no connection with him. It should not be even written awards but any previous section that he contributed for AMS. VandVictory (talk) 06:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

No it does not. See WP:SELFPUB. The ref is ONLY sourcing he left AMS. This is allowed under SELFPUB as it meets all the conditions. Material by a TV stations is also used in biographies about the people who work there. I'm not sure what you are saying in the second paragraph. There was a complaint about the material being in the climate section, so it was moved down to the awards. Bgwhite (talk) 06:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Where was the complaint? It should be at climate because these views are related with the climate changes. VandVictory (talk) 07:08, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

VandVictory OccultZone removed the IP's message about the placement. Please take this up on The Fringe theory noticeboard. This is where the majority of the discussion is taking. Bgwhite (talk) 21:31, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Self published sources are only really acceptable for uncontroversial content, especially in biographies. These are statements that make him look like a lunatic. Maybe he is, but if so we need independent coverage to establish significanceandcontext. Guy (Help!) 06:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, the WP:SELFPUB is not applying well here. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

We are sourcing why he left the AMS. A video produced and put on YouTube by KUSI TV in which Coleman says why he left the AMS at the 42 second mark is not controversial. KUSI has also put up videos that are pro climate change. He is known as a climate skeptic. Washington Post, The Atlantic, CNN, Tech Times.

Again, he won the highest award that a broadcast meteorologist can receive in the U.S. The award is from the AMS. He then leaves the AMS over AMS' stance on climate change. The two sentence I've tried all along say #1 he left the AMS #2 AMS' stance to back up sentence #1. Bgwhite (talk) 01:31, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

We may be trying to explain why he left, but what comes across is a WP:COATRACK for uncritical reporting of climate change denialism. When two parties are in dispute, as is clearly the case here, it is extremely unwise to quote only one party, and actually very unwise to quote either directly: instead we should go to reliable independent sources and describe the dispute as they do. You know this, I am sure. I realise that you want to include his climate change denialism in the article, but it's dangerous to do this without context, for the reason I noted above: if we're going to make the man sound like a crank, we'd better do it by reference to excellent sources. Guy (Help!) 17:06, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Guy Consensus at the Fringe noticeboard was to include the material if the award is included. The reason why... it sounds like the AMS is condoning Coleman's views. So, at the moment your views and changing of the article is going against consensus that was reached there. No, my goal isn't to include his denialism. My goal was that he won the highest award, then "turned his back" on the award and the group that gave it to him. I do think the "views on global warming" section could be re-written better. The quotes in there make him sound wacked out, especially the second paragraph. Lets revisit this in just over a week as there is something else going and would be better to talk then. Bgwhite (talk) 18:57, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Also.. I'm not to happy about the "conspiracy theorist" category attached. Bgwhite (talk) 19:06, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

There is at least one WP:RS for it: [9]. Guy (Help!) 13:48, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry but who ever wrote the sophomoric crap as it currently is on Mr.Coleman's views on the global warming theory (*Climate Change*?) is very very biased. The writer presents critics of the Mr. Coleman as factual when in fact they only have opinions. Lets try to be less political OK? Just the facts please. --75.130.91.73 (talk) 22:02, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Criticism (moved from user talk page)

I thought about leaving this in but, I really don't think it's a good idea to cite contentious content to opinion pieces. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:20, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

(note: this is in ref to these two diffs)

I don't quite agree, but I understand your point. This source goes into more depth; perhaps we should use it instead (or in addition). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:40, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Do we not have any coverage in non-partisan sources? This looks increasingly like a minor crank who is not actually considered significant by any heavyweight source. Guy (Help!) 06:47, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

@JzG: Serious enough. Since people could dispute the notability of G. Edward Griffin, I would agree here. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:05, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Do he fails general notability? VandVictory (talk) 15:56, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Coleman is unquestionably notable for his career in weathercasting. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:16, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

He's notable. Founder of the Weather Channel, Original weather person for Good Morning America and several hundred news articles about him in "minor" sources like the Washington Post, The Atlantic, CNN and ABC News Bgwhite (talk) 00:50, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not disputing notability per se, I am disputing whether his climate change denialism is sufficiently important to be included here. Notable cranks tend to gain coverage for their crankery, but coverage of Coleman's climate denialism looks pretty thin. Guy (Help!) 17:03, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Guy If Coleman was just another "weather guy" at a TV news station, he probably wouldn't have an article. If he had an article, your point would be valid or at most a sentence about climate change. With Coleman founding the Weather Channel and on Good Morning America, his stature is higher than most. The cherry on top would be his very public views culminating with the video. Bgwhite (talk) 19:05, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

In whihc case it should be trivially easy for you to secondary-source material from reality-based sources, rather than relying on youtube uploads of primary sources. Guy (Help!) 21:48, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

BLP noticeboard

Section = 109 BLP articles labelled "Climate Change Deniers" all at once. This article was placed in a "climate change deniers" category. After discussion on WP:BLPN and WP:CFD the category was deleted. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:19, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Coleman (news weathercaster). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.kusi.com/story/12963605/john-coleman

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)