Weather Channel Founder Warns Gore May ‘Win’ Climate Debate in 2016 – Gore May ‘Declare Victory’

Weather Channel Founder John Coleman, a meteorologist for over six decades, is warning that Al Gore may win the decades long “global warming” debate if the victor of the 2016 Presidential election further cements the UN Paris climate agreement and EPA regulations on carbon dioxide.

gore wins - Google Search.clipular

“This election may be a ‘tipping point’ in the climate debate,” Coleman declared in an interview with Climate Depot.

“Climate change, a scientific issue, has now totally become a political issue. As a result, we skeptical climate scientists are perhaps about to be handed a major defeat in the climate debate,” Coleman said.

“President Obama imposed the UN climate agreement on the United States without Senate ratification. Then the President’s Environmental Protection Agency implemented climate rules without a single vote of Congress. If the next President does not overturn these regulations, U.S. citizens will suffer the consequences as energy prices soar over the next eight years,” Coleman explained.

“Al Gore may emerge from the shadows to declare victory in the ‘global warming’ debate if Hillary Clinton moves into the White House. Yes, if that happens and the new climate regulations become the law of the land, they will be next to impossible to overturn for four to eight years,” Coleman added.

“Climate Hustle,” the movie that exposes the facts and propaganda being used to promote global warming alarmism, is now available in the U.S. on DVD and Blu-ray.  It was the #1 movie in America (per screen average) during its one-night theater event in May, playing in 400 theaters in over 200 U.S. cities.

Marc Morano, the host of “Climate Hustle,” agreed with Coleman. “Global warming skeptics face the possibly a historic setback in 2016, despite skeptics having won every political battle going back decades from not having the UN’s Kyoto Protocol ratified in the U.S., to defeating cap-and-trade multiple times,” Morano said.

“The hard cold truth is that the basic theory has failed. Many notable scientists reject man-made global warming fears. And several of them, including a Nobel Prize winner, are in the new “Climate Hustle” movie,” Coleman recently commented. Coleman provided an on-screen introduction for the film when it appeared in theaters.

Coleman noted: “The excellent new movie “Climate Hustle” makes it clear that there is no significant MAN-MADE global warming.  While our climate has been warming off-and-on since the last ice age began to fade away, the carbon dioxide put in the air by our burning of fossil fuels in the last 175 years has turned out to cause almost no warming at all and will not create a climate crisis. Yet the politicians have created a campaign of climate fear that makes Al Gore proud.”

“We will not give up the fight,” he added.


The critically acclaimed film, “Climate Hustle”, reveals that more and more scientists are turning away from climate change fears and are now willing to expose the threat posed by scientifically meaningless, yet ruinously expensive climate policies that will do great damage to our liberty, prosperity and national sovereignty.


[It’s Here! CLIMATE HUSTLE DVDs and Blu-rays are NOW AVAILABLE! Order yours today! 
Groundbreaking film that packed theaters across America on May 2nd called “brutal and extremely funny” by National Review, “tremendous” by Cal Thomas, and World Net Daily says it “could be the most important movie of the year.” (Order now:

The Reviews Are in! ‘Climate Hustle’ is ‘the most dangerous documentary of year’ – ‘Wickedly effective use of slapstick humor’ – ‘Lays waste to Gore’ – ‘Brutal & Extremely Funny’



85 Responses

      1. <<hp.. ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★::::::!il959r:….,….

          1. “You got it buckaroo.”

            lol! He certainly seems to…

            There’s a disease going around which causes people to lose interest in what’s true.

            It makes Marc Morano’s job so much easier…

            “Marc Morano is the executive director and chief correspondent of ClimateDepot. com, a project of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT). Morano is also the Communications Director at CFACT, a conservative think-tank in Washington D.C. that has received funding from ExxonMobil, Chevron, as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars from foundations associated with Richard Mellon Scaife. According to 2011 IRS Forms, Morano was the highest paid staff member with a salary of $150,000 per year. Morano’s blog Climate Depot regularly publishes articles questioning man-made global warming.”


          1. Are you suggesting either Hillary or Trump would be better for America? Half of Hillary voters are voting against trump. Half of trumps voters are voting against Hillary. By my count that leaves half of America looking for a 3rd party.
            Mmmm, mmmm – flat tax here we come. Everybody pulls their weight.
            Wake up!

  1. I think Al Gore should get the Nobel Prize for chemistry. Ancient alchemists were unable to turn lead into gold but look how easy it was for Al to turn CO2 into unbelievable amounts of gold. Brilliant!

        1. Obama won the Peace price for the plan to revive the global climate con and turn the world over to the UN in the name of Climate Change. He has completed his mission except for one thing. Disarming the US citizen. Once that is complete, the UN’s implementation phase 2030 Agenda can begin. The world citizens class can be made equal economically by the means of eliminating currency and replacing it with carbon credits. We will all be rationed a fixed amount of energy a month based on a group of academics that elect each other based on merit to the scientific community. You can not save it, or roll it over, you can not transfer it. You pay the actual amount of energy it cost to make something, or use. So if you live in a big house or a small you get the same amount of energy to heat or cool. big or small car.. this will consolidate everyone into cities, naturally, living off of minimal green necessities. people will build things for the love of it.. like linux.. for free.. people will use thier energy credits to get things like tools to make cars for the love of making cars, forget food or heat. the political elite class will make the hard decisions for us from the UN ivory towers. It is called a technocracy.. all the steps of the 2030 agenda are exactly part of it. it was decided in the 1970’s crazy conspiracy.. I know.. yep.. look up from your devices.. it literally is 1984 like you read/watched in high school.

        2. “You mean like the one Obama won?”

          Likely no.

          The fiction here is coming from one Marc Morano, the person who runs Climate Depot, and someone who is paid by the fossil fuel industry to lie about the dangerous nature of their product.

          Is it possible there are people so stupid they still believe him?

          “Marc Morano is the executive director and chief correspondent of ClimateDepot. com, a project of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT). Morano is also the Communications Director at CFACT, a conservative think-tank in Washington D.C. that has received funding from ExxonMobil, Chevron, as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars from foundations associated with Richard Mellon Scaife.”

          1. Gee, a Clintonian vast right wing conspiracy reference. A regular lil Hillary Clinton dodge. Folks are so insistent on control of others, aren’t they.

            1. “a Clintonian vast right wing conspiracy reference.”


              What’s more likely, sweetheart, that a few well-known liars with clear and unambiguous financial ties to the fossil fuel industry have been conspiring for a few decades?

              …or that all scientists on Earth have been conspiring for centuries?

              “Exxon Knew about Climate Change almost 40 years ago”


              “The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century”


              1. But already in place in the mid-19th century was the competing (and eventually proven as correct) hypothesis that cosmic forces were the primary driving elements in the terrestrial climate. The acceleration of Uranus prior to 1821 and subsequent deceleration was contrary to the laws of motion and gravity as Newton had described them – unless, of course, there was a hitherto unknown body farther out that was perturbing Uranus.

                James Adhemar, a contemporary and fellow countryman of Neptune discoverer Urbain J.J. Leverrier was intrigued by the fact that if a planet 17 times earth’s mass could influence another at a billion miles away so what would the influence would be on earth if there is a planet 317 times earth’s mass passing less than four hundred million miles from us? Given that he was able to establish that there is a precession of the perihelion point (as opposed to that of the equinoxes) under the influence of Jupiter he knew that each hemisphere would be subject to greater or lesser insolation, as it turned out, on a roughly 21,000 year period.

                By the end of the American Civil War Scotsman John Croll had figured out that the eccentricity, on a period of about 110,000 years, of the earth’s orbit changed and also under the influence of Jupiter and that there would be times of greater accentuation of the effect of the perihelion position than others.

                Just after World War I working out of Budapest was Milutin Milankovitch who was able to fit the final piece of the puzzle by figuring out that Jupiter also changes, on a 41,000 year cycle, the amount of axial tilt of the earth. Geologists studying the rock record were able to confirm that the three cycles, in unison now known as the Milankovitch Cycle, were correct in 1976. This was also the year of the publication in Science magazine of an article by astronomer John Eddy establishing the solar connection with the Medieval Optimum, the Little Ice Age, the Maunder and Sporer Minima and the 20th century warming.

                It is very troubling that these works are horribly misunderstood and grotesquely underestimated. Invoking something beyond these and other natural forces is not only unnecessary it is pseudoscientific.

                CLIMATEGATE – the revelation that the pseudoscientists at East Anglia University know just as much about the atmosphere as Harvard law professors know about the Constitution

                  1. “Hilarious Gish gallop.”

                    Indeed. Let me distill it into what the poster actually said:

                    “Anything but my tailpipe.”

                    We are overriding the natural cycles. It’s not natural. It’s us.

                    “Where are we currently in the natural cycle (Milankovitch cycle)? The warmest point of the last cycle was around 10,000 years ago, at the peak of the Holocene. Since then, there has been an overall cooling trend, consistent with a continuation of the natural cycle, and this cooling would continue for thousands of years into the future if all else remained the same. But since 1750 however, the CO₂ content of the atmosphere has deviated from the natural cycle. Instead of decreasing, it has increased because of the fossil-fuel burning. Methane and nitrous oxide have also increased unnaturally because of agricultural practices and other factors. The world has also warmed unnaturally. We are now deviating from the natural cycle.”


            2. Exactly. Wikileaks has confirmed the huge degree of corruption and collusion between the media and the highest levels of government. It’s even worse than suspected. Al Gore and his cronies are major players in this scam by ensuring an “uninformed and compliant citizenry”, to use their own words.

    1. “Al Gore should get the Nobel Prize for chemistry.”

      Al Gore is not a chemist. He’s also not the person who discovered we warm the planet by emitting CO₂.

      That was discovered by someone named Eunice Foote over a century ago.

      If you don’t even know that, why should anyone bother taking you seriously?

      “Overlooked by modern researchers is the work of Eunice Foote, who, three years prior to the start of Tyndall’s laboratory research, conducted similar experiments on absorption of radiant energy by atmospheric gases, such as CO₂ and water vapor. The presentation of her report at a major scientific convention in 1856 was accompanied by speculation that even modest increases in the concentration of CO₂ could result in significant atmospheric warming.”

      1. Oh for God’s sake, I was being sarcastic you dope! Al Gore is a scientific imbecile. He got a D in a basic, introductory Earth Science course at Harvard. Stuff he should have known in grade or high school.

        You probably shouldn’t take me seriously. I was a geology professor for thirty six years and taught many courses that included weather and climate. Many which studied the climatic history of the 4.5 billion years of the Earth’s existence. Much better that you believe morons like Gore, Bill McKibben (English major form Harvard) or that world famous climatologist, Barack Hussein Obama. I assume you believe in the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, and the Easter Bunny too. Hell’s Bells, you probably will vote for Hillary if you believe the AGW scam! To quote that famous philosopher, Bugs Bunny, “What a Maroon.”

        1. “You probably shouldn’t take me seriously.”


          Don’t worry, I don’t.

          Now is it possible you’re so stupid you cannot figure out why a person on the payroll of the fossil fuel industry would lie about the dangerous nature of that industry’s product?

          “ClimateDepot. com is being financed by the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, a nonprofit in Washington that advocates for free-market solutions to environmental issues. Public tax filings for 2003-7 (the last five years for which documents are available) show that the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow received hundreds of thousands of dollars from the ExxonMobil Foundation”

          1. You’re the perfect example of a person with great faith. Faith is when you believe something that no one in their right mind would believe. Like all the other silly warmers.

            1. “Faith is when you believe something that no one in their right mind would believe. Like all the other silly warmers.”

              You don’t say!

              You mean like believing a well-known liar and “doubting” a thermometer?

              …that kind of faith?

              “2015 Unambiguously the Hottest Year on Record… 2015 set the record with 99.996% confidence.”


        2. Google is paying 97$ per hour! Work for few hours and have longer with friends & family! !iw1017t:
          On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
          ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialJobsCash737NetworkExpoGetPay$97Hour ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★::::::!iw1017t:….,….

  2. Good comedy from Coleman: Then the President’s Environmental Protection Agency implemented climate rules without a single vote of Congress.

    Um, the SCOTUS forced EPA to act under existing law that was passed by Congress.

    Who is stupid enough to fall for this charlatan’s hokum?



    1. CO2 is not a pollutant, without it, we all would die; furthermore, statistical predictive models on a chaotic system like global climate is cannot be ‘settled science’ any more than GDP predictions are settled science. This is simply the nature of predictive statistics.

          1. Sure.


            2. any substance, as certain chemicals or waste products, that renders the air, soil, water, or other natural resource harmful or unsuitable for a specific purpose.


            Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency
            549 U.S. 497 (2007)
            is a 5-4 U.S. Supreme Court case in which twelve states and several cities of the United States brought suit against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to force that the federal agency to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) as pollutants.

            Because of federal law:

            United States Code of Federal Regulations, Title 42, Chapter 85. Title III, Section 7602(g) defines:

            The term “air pollutant” means any air pollution agent or combination of such agents, including any physical, chemical, biological, radioactive (including source material, special nuclear material, and byproduct material) substance or matter which is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air.




            1. Yes, just like a ‘projection’ of future GDP is not a prediction. You obviously don’t understand predictive statistics such as regression and time-series techniques that the warmist drama queens mistaken for ‘settled science.’

              It shows acute ignorance to claim that a predictive model on such a chaotic system as climate is ‘settled science’ — back to statistics 101 for you!

                    1. Excellent, we both agree that the statistical models of warmists do not, and cannot prove CO2 warming to be ‘settled science’ — now that we both understand basic statistics and predictive analysis, we can discuss the ‘Hypothesis’ of man-made Global Warming, while inviting counter-hypothesis’ without throwing a tantrum. After all, this is the scientific method.

                    2. If you understood the scientific method you would realize that ‘theory’ is very different from ‘settled science.’

                1. Doing a ‘good job’ is not settled science. Economics is known as one of the least accurate social sciences and the warmists use the same statistical tools and then imagine their results to be ‘settled science’ regarding the future state of a chaotic system.

                    1. We cannot model climate with our physics and computer science to any degree of certainty; that is why climatologists use predictive statistics such as regression and time-series. These results are not ‘settled science’ — that is not the nature of statistics.

                      Furthermore, to dogmatically cling to C02 as the overwhelming predictive variable of climate and discount variables such as other atmospheric gases, solar intensity, cloud cover, geothermal activity, is not science … but more like a form of religious fanaticism. We can see this fanatism more clearly when these ‘scientific minds’ propose locking up anyone who doesn’t agree with their statistical models of the future.

      1. Here, let me soothe your hurt feels and try again for good feels:

        Coleman: Then the President’s Environmental Protection Agency implemented climate rules without a single vote of Congress.

        The SCOTUS forced EPA to act under existing law that was passed by Congress.

        No one will fall for this charlatan’s hokum.

        How did I do? Better?



          1. You didn’t get good feels? Dangit. Let me try one last time:

            Coleman: Then the President’s Environmental Protection Agency implemented climate rules without a single vote of Congress.

            The SCOTUS forced EPA to act under existing law that was passed by Congress.

            This is hokum from a charlatan.

            Good feels now?



  3. Poor climate change deniers! When will they realize they are on the wrong side of history and science? When they see famine and flooding/drought across the planet, or will it be their future decedents when they cannot live on Earth any longer because we have modified our atmosphere too much?

    1. You are on the wrong side of basic science and statistics. Regression analysis and time-series models on a chaotic system like weather can never be ‘settled science’ — this is the nature of statistics. You are a science denier by turning predictive statistics into something it was never designed to be: ‘settled science.’

      Warmist drama queens are as foolish as someone ‘predicting’ the GDP next year and claiming their prediction is settled science. Settled science itself is an oxymoron, since science is based on hypothesis and counter-hypothesis. By calling those that introduce alternative hypothesis ‘deniers’ you are actually destroying the scientific method by bullying and belittling those that wish to offer different climate models. You seem more religious than scientific, claiming your vision of future doom is already a fact.

      Why do warmists attack those that do not believe the future of climate is ‘settled’ by predictive models of carbon content? The reason is simple: They are unwitting dups for the trillion dollar Chicago carbon trading floor that high finance is salivating for. It is ironic that many from Occupy Wall St. and other left groups claim to hate rampant financial speculation, yet are now assisting these vultures by parroting the false mime used to argue for carbon speculation.

      I have always noticed that those on the left are poorly prepared with mathematics and statistics, yet it is sad this lack of basic knowledge has caused them to shill for the carbon traders in the most unscientific way I have ever witnessed.

      1. Weak Gish gallop. Fundamental, basic physics explains the observed changes.

        But I guess you’ll argue that regression analysis is better than isotopic analysis or the physics of GHGs, eh pal?



        1. Please, fundamental physics will not magically model a chaotic system such as climate. Carbon is only one of many greenhouse gases, and greenhouse gases are only one variable of climate. Isotopic analysis is designed to gather data, not predict the future . In fact this data is used in statistical analysis:

          “Isotope geochemists have developed time series of variations in the 14C and 13C concentrations of atmospheric CO2.”

          Unfortunately for the warmists, time series analysis was not designed to yield predictions that are ‘settled science.’

          1. But GCMs are able to model climate and have done a good job thus far.

            You are simply parroting some passage on a disinformation site that appealed to your self-identity.



            1. I agree, I have a self identity that understands statistics … it is indeed laughable that time-series and regression analysis are thought to yield ‘settled science’ by warmist drama queens.

              BTW, I am glad you found the link to be disinformation, since it was written by warmists:

              “The results show that the full glacial-to-interglacial change in 13C/12C
              of the atmosphere — which took many thousand years — was about 0.03%,
              or about 5 times less than that observed in the last 150 years.”

              1. Cheap strawman: it is indeed laughable that time-series and regression analysis are thought to yield ‘settled science’ by warmist drama queens.

                Trying to get play with cheap strawmen is cheap.



                1. I am glad you think the regression and time series projects of the warmists are straw men — I tend to agree. Predictive statistics are not magical doors into the future that yield ‘settled science.’

    2. “Poor climate change deniers! When will they realize they are on the wrong side of history and science?”

      They already know they are on the wrong side of science!

      Climate Denialism is a self-destructive mental disorder.

      Nice name, BTW! 😉

      “2015 was the warmest year since modern record-keeping began in 1880, according to a new analysis by NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.”

  4. ALGore & Company may win the contest to see how many regulations can be imposed on the USA; but it is ridiculous to equate that with ‘winning the climate debate’! I am appalled by the wording of this article and annoyed that Coleman is using those words. Fact is ICE is increasing in Antarctica, Greenland and on many glaciers in South America and Asia. Last month the artic saw one of the iciest September since satellite measurements began and it set the record for fastest september rebound. The only warming data the ‘warmists’ still have on their side are adjusted surface temperature charts and other tampered with crap. Lets not forget that LaNina is kicking in quite efficiently as winter blizzards have already struck parts of the US early and the lanina will ensure a harsh winter this year, followed by a mild summer and then another harsh winter, even the world met offices admit that. Stuff like that matters when the warmists are always talking about the planet being ‘too hot’, you can’t suddenly ‘win’ a debate on global warming in the middle of 2 cold years.

Leave a Reply