OutFront live Mon. – Fri. 7p ET

A grand jury could decide as early as Friday whether or not to indict Ferguson, MO police officer Darren Wilson for the fatal shooting of Michael Brown. CNN's Erin Burnett has the latest.
May 21st, 2014
08:40 PM ET

'Wheel of Fortune' host Pat Sajak under fire over 'unpatriotic racists' tweet

"Wheel of Fortune" host Pat Sajak, says he was kidding when he tweeted:

"I now believe global warming alarmists are unpatriotic racists knowingly misleading for their own ends. Good night."

The remark set off a firestorm with one fan responding:

"Apparently when he's not entertaining the trailer park crowd, @patsajak is a climatologist. buy a vowel for this, Pat: F_ck Off"

CNN's Nischelle Turner has more on the controversy.


Filed under: Global Warming • Social Media
soundoff (61 Responses)
  1. Barry

    If you cannot read satire out of his post. I don't know what to think about you. Also. Pat Sajak is a Vietnam vet.

    June 20, 2014 at 1:51 pm | Reply
  2. The Devil

    Ann Coulter sure is one ugly gal

    June 19, 2014 at 11:21 am | Reply
  3. Audrey

    I don't know Pat Sajak's political views, but I never heard that he's got a colander on his head with an aluminum foil antenna. As a result, I suspect that he was satirizing the other side - the folks who believe that people worried about global warming are unpatriotic racists who knowingly mislead for the own ends. I wouldn't be at all surprised if a wing nut broadcast such a sentiment on right-wing talk radio or TV, and Mr. Sajak sarcastically responded. This is obviously speculation on my part, but it makes sense.

    June 15, 2014 at 11:19 pm | Reply
  4. Mike_Shanahan

    All these comments must be true because they are on CNN and we now that CNN never tells anything that is untrue. Right Mr. Jones?

    June 15, 2014 at 4:47 am | Reply
  5. ART

    Hey Pat do America and the world a favor, go to Vegas lock yourself in a cheap motel room and do what mentally challenged game show host do best

    June 10, 2014 at 2:18 pm | Reply
  6. Cleo Torres

    Who is SajaK? Nobody! Why would I listen to him? There's nothing in between his ears. He can talk nonsense and host a show but that's it. Stick to hosting a moronic show, jerk!

    June 7, 2014 at 5:06 pm | Reply
  7. Dana

    News articles have turned into a collection of tweets.

    June 5, 2014 at 10:39 pm | Reply
  8. Emmi

    Pat needs to keep his thoughts to his self, and his mouth shut!

    June 4, 2014 at 4:11 pm | Reply
  9. malakieusn

    Read what you wrote.. The "WALL STREET JOURNAL" debunks.........

    What a laugh. You actually put stock in a financial newspaper to know anything about climate change? And based on your statement, you take what they say as gospel? Man you gave me one heck of a laugh with that one...

    I would not trust the WSJ, CNN, MSNBC or any other news media, including Fox, as far as I could throw them. The fact you do is sadly scary because so many like you think you know the truth based on media bias and propaganda.

    Any one with common sense knows climate change is real. It is NORMAL planetary cycle. While I think pollution and such DO have an impact overall, it is NOT the cause. And you know what I base my opinions on? REAL LIFE experience AND farmers who have farmed the land for decades.

    If you bothered to get out of the big city, you too would see the changes. But most people like you sit in the city, read the news online and assume you know what you are talking about. When I talked to farmers who have owned and farmed their land for 4 or 5 decades and THEY tell me things have and are continuing to change faster each year, THAT is what I listen to. Not some scientist and especially not some city dweller getting his information from biased media outlets.

    June 3, 2014 at 12:41 pm | Reply
  10. kws11

    There are 8 billion of us emitting CO2 with every breath now. Maybe if we did less huffing and puffing about global warming, the problem would be solved and I could get my good light bulbs back.

    May 30, 2014 at 7:00 pm | Reply
    • Dana

      There is a small but important difference between carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide.

      June 5, 2014 at 10:38 pm | Reply
  11. oneSTARman

    Think about what Sajak does for a LIVING. Why would anybody listen to what a TV Carney has to say?

    May 30, 2014 at 2:25 pm | Reply
    • Mike

      why would anyone list to carney onestarman?

      June 5, 2014 at 7:55 am | Reply
  12. Bobby Gee

    He probably googled how much Al Gore has made since he started pushing "global warming". Once you realize the astronomical amount of money that is going into the pockets of the alarmists, you have to ask questions like, "if the oceans are going to rise as high as they claim, why did Al buy property in Malibu?". The answer is obvious. He doesn't believe it himself and is in it for the money.

    May 30, 2014 at 11:34 am | Reply
  13. Kilroy

    I didn't know Al Gore, Barak Obama, etc were climatologists either. Guess that is just one of many things they are experts at.
    Most real climatologists do not believe in man made global warming. The system has been corrupted by all the money being pumped into "research". They make money by declaring the sky is falling, but don't make money when they say what has been happening is a normal, natural process that has very little, if anything to do with what humans are doing.

    May 30, 2014 at 6:57 am | Reply
    • Syndrome Zed

      Wow, could you get that more wrong? Most climatologists do believe man-made global warming is very much real. What they don't believe is that the worst case scenario that the alarmists like to talk about. The case for man-made warming is straightforward logic – we pump out more CO2 and by clearing forests for development, we reduce some of the carbon sink that would absorb it at the same time. More CO2 = warmer temperatures. BUT, most climatologists also recognize all the other ways carbon gets absorbed by the planet – there are a number of other carbon sinks that keep CO2 from spiraling out of control, and even other potential checks and balances like cloud cover (increases with warmer temps, blocking sunlight).

      Incidentally, having watched WoF with my wife a fair bit, I'm about 90% sure Sajak's tweet was just like he said – a joke. He uses those "off-topic" throwaway lines all the time, especially in the closing bit at the end of the show. Not sure I ever thought of any of them as funny, usually more of a "huh? Oooookay" kind of deal, but the "good night" at the end of it gives it away, even if the utter nonsense of it didn't (racists?).

      June 16, 2014 at 3:34 pm | Reply
  14. SallyMJ

    Satire seems to perhaps be lost on progressives. Maybe they should have paid attention in English instead of cutting class.

    And Twitter is not exactly War and Peace or Shakespeare. Come on, people. This isn't rocket science.

    May 30, 2014 at 3:17 am | Reply
  15. Joel O'Brien

    Let's also remember that Pat served this country in the Army(ours) in Vietnam with Armed Forces Radio. Maintaining your cool and playing the hits while Charlie is shooting up everything around you, one develops a pretty good sense of humor.

    May 29, 2014 at 8:48 pm | Reply
  16. aztecbill

    Pat Sajack is a meterologist. That is how he started in TV. And like most meteroligists, he rejects dangerous global warming caused by man. His post was a joke used to show how the left treats folks on the right for disagreeing with them. responses to his joke show that it is true.

    May 27, 2014 at 8:08 pm | Reply
    • hallambaker

      No, Sejak has no qualifications in the field of meteorology. He was a weatherman, presenting the weather reports on a local TV station. But that does not make him a meteorologist.

      Calling people 'unpatriotic' for disagreeing with him is a dishonest tactic, not a joke. When people say nasty things like that they are not trying to be funny. They are trying to be mean and nasty. When they pretend that it was a joke so they can blame the people they were being mean to they are being dishonest and nasty all over again.

      97% of real scientists who have degrees in the subject, teach university course etc. agree that global warming is a real phenomenon and that the primary cause in man. That was not the case twenty years ago when the first models started to come out but all the doubt has gone.

      The only 'scientists' who doubt climate change are the ones being paid very well to do that. Just like the doctors who were paid by the tobacco companies to deny that smoking causes cancer.

      May 30, 2014 at 3:08 pm | Reply
      • Jtom

        No. 97% of scientists who had published papers on climate in a self-reported (not a scientific random sampling) agreed that the earth was warming and that man had made a "significant" contribution. The word "significant" was not defined (to some, a ten percent contribution would be significant). Further, that contribution could be the result of the island heat effect around large cities, deforestation, agriculture, or carbon dioxide – no cause was specified in the poll. Finally, there was no question asked whether there would be any negative results from the warming.

        But very foolish people tout that 97% as justification to destroy the economy and make energy prices soar.

        Do your own research on how these scare numbers originated. Then ask yourself what is motivating the Al Gores to distort the facts like they do.

        June 6, 2014 at 7:15 am | Reply
    • Lawrence in Phoenix

      A meteorologist may be able to give you today's forecast but cannot be called on as an expert in long-term climate study.

      All of us giving non-professional opinions on what we think is happening with the earth's climate is nonsense. It's a crude comparison but it's like you arguing with a diagnosis that a mechanic of 30 years gives to explain the problem you're having with your car because you read a pamphlet on auto repair and fancy yourself an expert.

      June 1, 2014 at 11:30 pm | Reply
    • Android©

      Sajak is a moron. That is how he got started in tv. He has a huge drinking problem, as you see by the way he just fired himself.

      June 2, 2014 at 11:48 am | Reply
  17. markustt

    97% of all real scientists say climate change is real. Case closed. Sajack is a moron.

    May 26, 2014 at 8:33 pm | Reply
    • aztecbill

      97% ?? The Wallstreet Journal pretty much busts that myth in today's issue.

      May 27, 2014 at 8:11 pm | Reply
      • hallambaker

        The Wall Street Journal has gone down hill since Rupert Murdoch bought it.

        Murdoch denies climate change because doing something about it might hurt his profits. His other station is Fox News, the only news station that is less accurate than Russia today and Press TV.

        May 30, 2014 at 3:10 pm | Reply
    • KiddSS

      97% of all statistics are made up including yours you cretin.

      You know how you can tell "Anthropomorphic Climate Change" is junk Science.
      1. When predictions don't come true and alarmist notions don't match reality.
      2. When idiot public policy politicians are talking about "settled science", like they do "Free Money" as if either was settled of free.
      3. When the "Climatologists" shrill cries about the policy that is required, rise in direct proportion to the lack of reality in their science.

      May 27, 2014 at 10:20 pm | Reply
      • Android©

        You guys go on kissing up to the Oil companies and supporting the sheiks, and the rest of us will try to save you because we are adults. You're welcome.

        June 2, 2014 at 11:49 am | Reply
    • snowdog50

      That number refers to a study of about 12,000 climate related peer reviewed papers, published by climate scientist John Cook. Only 0.3% of those papers actually pointed to anthropogenic causes of climate change. Cook claimed that since 97% of those in the peer review voted to publish the papers, they then agreed with the conclusions.

      So, any way you swing it, the 97% consensus number was just plain made up.

      May 30, 2014 at 12:40 pm | Reply
    • BigBK

      Wait a minute- .I thought it was called "Global Warming" all this time ? When did it become "Climate Change" ? In any case, let's just all dig deep into our pockets right now and send a check to the government so we can all contribute and do our part in saving the planet.........so what are you all waiting for ? Wake up and smell the coffee, my friend. LOL

      June 2, 2014 at 9:53 pm | Reply
      • Turn of Phrase

        Who should I make the check out to?

        June 20, 2014 at 2:01 pm | Reply
    • Robtex

      And you can't read. Bigger joke.

      June 4, 2014 at 10:48 am | Reply
    • Ronnie

      Where does this 97% figure come from, I possess Masters degrees in physics and mathematics, and could not find this figure in ANY academic publications. It is a number pulled out of the climate change fanatics.

      What happened to the Ozone? Oh, we moved on to a more profitable environmental issue.

      June 11, 2014 at 12:43 pm | Reply
  18. mc_hale

    I'm assuming Sajek was making a joke.

    May 25, 2014 at 9:14 am | Reply
  19. gettingtoknowdad

    This is a test post

    May 24, 2014 at 9:34 pm | Reply
  20. Rick

    Sajak is hilarious! Who knew! I love this guy!

    May 24, 2014 at 10:08 am | Reply
  21. gettingtoknowdad

    This is the 2nd time in a week that I've seen Ann Coulter being interviewed on CNN. I saw her with Don Lemon the other night and just now from the Erin Burnett show. As a CNN News consumer of several years, I'm concerned that CNN is leaning to the right by inviting the likes of Ann Coulter to comment on your network. Isn't she a Fox News commentator? I realize that CNN's ratings have been low for some time now, but I very much hope that your network will continue to be an objective news provider and not resort to pandering to right-wing conservatives like Ann Coulter or others of her ilk. I watch the news channels for information, not subjective opinions or uninformed commentary. With objective information and well-considered analysis I can make my own decisions about the issues of the day.

    May 24, 2014 at 1:37 am | Reply
    • rp1588

      CNN has been pretty far right for a long time.

      May 28, 2014 at 2:03 am | Reply
      • Mada

        CNN's neither left, nor right, and except for a few people, struggles a bit to hold onto objectivity.

        The truth is, they lean sensastional. Interviewing a somewhat moderate conservative like Jon Huntsman is more balanced, but not as in-your-face. Ann Coulter on the other hand...

        Similarly; if the big story's how Obama's a huge rising star on the political stage (08) then that's their huge story. If the story's about the Tea Party rising and nearly siezing congress, they'll talk about that.

        (Everyone who says CNN's part of the "liberal media" clearly wasn't watching the network during the Lewinsky Scandals.)

        May 31, 2014 at 5:15 pm | Reply
    • erik

      Objective? Sure...

      June 2, 2014 at 2:10 am | Reply
    • Android©

      You just now noticed this? They have been Fox Lite© for a few years, but they still enrage the Foxbots by covering non-Benghazi stories.

      June 2, 2014 at 11:51 am | Reply
    • Robtex

      You are kidding right? CNN leaning to the right? It will take more than a few interviews to move that needle. It is currently buried far far far left.

      June 4, 2014 at 10:51 am | Reply
  22. Fred Griswold

    Global warming shouldn't be treated as a left-right issue. If you put one molecule of carbon dioxide into the air, the temperature of the atmosphere will go up by a predictable amount. That's not philosophy or social science, it's just simple physics, and shouldn't be treated as politics. In fact, this is the one part of leftist thinking that really is scientific. And if Pat Sajak is so smart, by the way, let's see him start communicating in some way that's not limited to 140 characters.

    May 23, 2014 at 3:13 am | Reply
    • Elton Reynolds

      No actually the entire point people have been telling you and others like you for years, there is no "Green House Gas" law,

      it's the Ideal Gas Law that controls the temperature of the atmosphere. PV=nRT

      The n represents the green house gas class, as well as other classes.

      LoL what you said's the funniest thing I have seen written all day but there is one thing that you may well go check up:

      the atmosphere always did and always will obey the Ideal Gas Law.

      This was established very well in aviation but cemented forever in the NASA computer atmospheric calculations where temperature of atmospheric air had to be projected for Mercury and Apollo.

      There is no "Green House Gas" calculation in gas mechanics. It was a POTENTIAL alteration of the laws of physical heat handling by CO2 that was HYPOTHESIZED and ACCEPTED as TRUE until of course HANSEN RETIRED and people taking his models apart are able to point to what previously would have been covered in a flood of bullshooting and bet hedging while millions were plundered from Atmospheric Sciences establishments worldwide.

      The Ideal Gas Law.

      It's what people learn actually controls the atmosphere's temperature when they learn to check what people on the internet say.

      May 26, 2014 at 6:21 pm | Reply
      • rp1588

        That's absolutely right, except for one little detail: its wrong. The sun pumps energy into the system.

        May 28, 2014 at 2:01 am | Reply
      • Fred Griswold

        Global warming is a reality. There is a good theoretical basis for believing that CO2 in the atmosphere raises its temperature – see "Life in the Hothouse" by Lenart, p. 52, if you don't believe me. And it's not just theory, there is more empirical evidence for it all the time. The oceans are warming up too. If you look at the temperature charts for the atmosphere and the oceans for the past 30 years or so, the trend is unmistakable. Facts are facts. It's better than believing all that propaganda you hear on Foxnews.

        May 28, 2014 at 8:39 pm | Reply
        • Jtom

          It's been over seventeen years since global temperaures have risen. That has been accepted by virtually everyone, including the IPCC. Please try to stay current with reality. All of the climate models of the 1990s have failed the reality test.

          As a result, other countries, such as Canada and Australia, are halting their efforts to reduce carbon dioxide in the air.

          June 6, 2014 at 7:26 am | Reply
          • Fred Griswold

            17 years is an exaggeration. In maybe the last 10 years the rise in the global land-ocean temperature index has leveled off. It certainly hasn't gone down any. And the rise since about 1910 has been dramatic. So this is still a big problem.

            June 19, 2014 at 3:01 am | Reply
      • Android©

        Boyle's Law has very little to do with this. Heat comes into the system from outside. Lock yourself in a hot car for an hour and watch the sweat come out of your skin. Get it now? or is it all just Benghazi to you?

        June 2, 2014 at 11:54 am | Reply
    • aztecbill

      It sounds like you are unaware that the climate models, that their theory is based upon, adds a 3 times positive feedback to the "known" rise in temperatures. There is no science that says it should be a 3 times positive feedback. There are examples of positive feedbacks and examples of negative feedbacks. They used 3 times positive feedback to make it really scary and because it fit the warming that occurred in the 80s and 90s. But since then, there has been no warming. That is why all their models currently predict temperatures well above the current temperatures. Scientists interested in truth would realize their 3X feddbacks are wrong. But these rent seeking scientists say the warming must be hiding somewhere. Otherwise they risk losing their piece of the billions that are spent yearly on this scam.

      May 27, 2014 at 8:18 pm | Reply
      • Fred Griswold

        You don't say who "they" are. I don't think there was ever much of a consensus among scientists about how much the temperature would go up over how much it would have risen anyway in the wake of the last ice age. But that's not the only thing that counts in anthropogenic climate change anyway. The oceans are going up in temperature too. Not to mention other effects like ocean acidification, thermal expansion etc.

        May 28, 2014 at 8:36 pm | Reply
        • aztecbill

          The "consensus" was based upon climate models. The climate models have failed. The models have a fudge factor in them call positive feedback. It is and always has been way above the "consensus" of almost all scientists. Stable systems rarely have a 3 times positive feedback that the climate models use. Reality has shown that it is likely well below 3X. Reality is showing a slight negative feedback. If the data doesn't fit the theory, its time to rethink the theory. Instead they rename it.

          May 28, 2014 at 9:33 pm | Reply
          • Fred Griswold

            A 3 times positive feedback added to the known rise in temperatures does seem a bit high. But since you're the one who brought that figure into the discussion, I guess it's up to you to defend it. When I see the actual effects – the polar ice cap, the hurricanes, the coral reefs, not to mention the actual temperature measurements – it's enough to convince me that global warming is for real.

            May 29, 2014 at 8:25 pm | Reply
            • aztecbill

              When a theory fails to predict, it is up to those that support that theory to defend it – not ones who think the theory was overblown in the first place to defend why they think that. That is how science works.

              Maybe you should really rethink your support for this. You seem to be rather gullible. You mention hurricanes yet we are currently in the longest period of no class 3 or higher hurricanes hitting the US since the civil war. You mention Coral reefs but you seem unaware of many recent peer reviewed articles that refute any effect on coral reefs. Are you aware that the best method to get funded for a project is to claim some Global warming connection? If we spent $2 billion a year to study anything and only funded those that agree with one side of the issue, we could get papers saying most anything. WAKEUP.

              May 30, 2014 at 1:19 pm | Reply
              • Fred Griswold

                Regarding hurricanes, I'm sure you're aware what Katrina did to New Orleans. The place may never completely recover. A few years ago there were four hurricanes that hit Florida all in one year. Hurricane Gilbert in 1988 was the most intense hurricane ever recorded in the Atlantic basin, until Hurricane Wilma actually surpassed it in 2005. This sort of thing didn't happen when I was a kid. What global warming has done to the polar ice cap is no secret, all you have to do is look at the satellite photos. The Northwest Passage, that all the 19th century explorers were looking for? It's there now. Just wait til the oil companies get used to having the new shipping lane. As for coral reefs, high sea-surface temperatures can cause a coral reef to bleach, turning it into a ghost town. Ocean acidification, which comes from excess carbon dioxide in the air, has the potential to wipe out the coral reefs in other ways, and has been called global warming's "evil twin" by oceanographer Richard Feely. This is from Melanie Lenart's "Life in the Hothouse". You seem to know quite a bit about this subject, but you don't even use your real name, so I can't tell how much credibility you might have in the scientific community, and Lenart is a recognized authority in the field. So Lenart's credibility is higher with me than yours is. In other words, I don't think you and I are going to agree.

                May 30, 2014 at 9:27 pm | Reply
      • Android©

        How much does Aztec Oil pay you to post this drivel? Are you at your company desk right now, or are you a paid blogger for them?

        June 2, 2014 at 11:57 am | Reply
      • A scientist

        If one plots the global average temperature over time, one will notice a rather dramatic slope, starting with the onset of the industrial age. Coincidence ?? How many starving polar bears do you need to see ?

        June 3, 2014 at 7:30 am | Reply
        • Jtom

          If you plot temperatures over a very long time period you will see many dramatic rises and drops, even before Man was around. And the polar bear population has been increasing ever since we stopped hunting them.

          June 6, 2014 at 7:32 am | Reply
  23. Tom

    Seriously? It is beyond pathetic that you bring out Ann Coulter to discuss climate change. I have to admit though, she is equally qualified to discuss the science of climate change as Pat Sajak.

    May 22, 2014 at 12:20 pm | Reply
  24. mary jolly

    Paaaaaaaalease ,GIVE IT A REST, IT'S AS THOUGH PEOPLE CANT WAIT TO BE HATERS,ANYMORE .........Pat is a good guy ,leave him alone !!!!!!!!!!!!! very classy remark with the "F" word.

    May 22, 2014 at 12:39 am | Reply
  25. John_Barney

    LOL. If he'd tweeted something bashing deniers, then it wouldn't make news.

    Also, he might very have been kidding around, so why is CNN even mentioning this? There is absolutely no context with his tweet or this story as reported here. Finally, I don't blame him for bashing alarmists or deniers, they both have their nutcases and, by the way, he's right- a lot of alarmists mislead with fear-mongering and flat out lies to fuel an agenda. Now, the part I don't get is the racism part.

    May 22, 2014 at 12:13 am | Reply

Post a comment


 

CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 393 other followers