Global Warmists Seek to Flush Out ‘Denier’ Meteorologists

[Dementia_Madness]

http://michellemalkin.com/2012/01/30/global-warmists/

The ultimate goal is to clone Al Gore to serve as a weatherman at every local television station so he can offer the patented Hypocrite-Cast® nightly, but that can’t happen if there are still global warming deniers allowed on the air:

    The Forecast the Facts campaign — led by 350.org, the League of Conservation Voters and the Citizen Engagement Lab — is pushing for more of a focus on global warming in weather forecasts, and is highlighting the many meteorologists who do not share their beliefs.

   “Our goal is nothing short of changing how the entire profession of meteorology tackles the issue of climate change,” the group explains on their website. “We’ll empower everyday people to make sure meteorologists understand that their viewers are counting on them to get this story right, and that those who continue to shirk their professional responsibility will be held accountable.”

    According to the Washington Post, the reason for the campaign can be found in a 2010 George Mason University surveys, which found that 63% of television weathermen think that global warming is a product of natural causes, while 31% believe it is from human activity.

    So far, the campaign has identified 55 “deniers” in the meteorologist community and are looking for more. They define “deniers” as “anyone who expressly refutes the overwhelming scientific consensus about climate change: that it is real, largely caused by humans, and already having profound impacts on our world.”

This seems incredibly counter-productive, because the more successful they are in adding names to the ever-growing meteorologist denier list, the faster the notion of “scientific consensus” goes out the window.

pseudoscience.

[NCVol]

pseudoscience.

Right, the deniers practice pseudo science.  It's why they trust TV weather readers as "experts" on climate. 

[Dementia_Madness]

Right, the deniers practice pseudo science.  It's why they trust TV weather readers as "experts" on climate.  

walk up to a meteorologist and call them a "TV weather reader". You libs really cannot take on any subject without first seeking to diminish others opinions by subjugating them to your labels and derogatory opinions.

http://www.collegeboard.com/csearch/majors_careers/profiles/careers/106697.html

Meteorologists are scientists who study the atmosphere. They examine its effects on the environment, predict the weather, or investigate climate trends.

http://weather.about.com/od/weatherfaqs/f/meteorologist.htm

A meteorologist is an individual with specialized education who uses scientific principles to explain, understand, observe or forecast the earth's atmospheric phenomena and/or how the atmosphere affects the earth and life on the planet. This specialized education would be a bachelor's or higher degree in meteorology or an atmospheric science. Individuals who have little formal education in the atmospheric sciences, or who have taken only industry survey courses, and who disseminate weather information and forecasts prepared by others, are properly designated weathercasters.

Scientific principles something you believers in pseudoscience hate.

[Sasquatch]

Is Alaska one of the 57 states? I sure do hope this doesn't skew the numbers for the world:

Bitter cold records broken in Alaska – all time coldest record nearly broken, but Murphy’s Law intervenes

Jim River, AK closed in on the all time record coldest temperature of -80°F set in 1971, which is not only the Alaska all-time record, but the record for the entire United States. Unfortunately, it seems the battery died in the weather station just at the critical moment.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/30/bitter-cold-records-broken-in-alaska-all-time-coldest-record-nearly-broken-but-murphys-law-intervenes/

Maybe these are the same batteries they use on the Volt? 

[Flummoxed Lummox]

http://michellemalkin.com/2012/01/30/global-warmists/

This seems incredibly counter-productive, because the more successful they are in adding names to the ever-growing meteorologist denier list, the faster the notion of “scientific consensus” goes out the window.

pseudoscience.m

[NCVol]

walk up to a meteorologist and call them a "TV weather reader". You libs really cannot take on any subject without first seeking to diminish others opinions by subjugating them to your labels and derogatory opinions.

Give me a damn break.  You're the one who added "pseudoscience" to the bottom of a post you otherwise didn't remark on.  

If you want to start off a reasonable debate by not first "diminish[ing] others' opinions by subjugating them to your labels and derogatory opinions," then DON'T START OFF THE TOPIC BY GRATUITOUSLY and randomly throwing out the term "pseudoscience."  

And I read your block quote.  Here's the relevant part:

....make sure meteorologists understand that their viewers....

63% of television weathermen think that global warming is a product of natural causes, while 31% believe it is from human activity.

That's YOUR quote.  So we're talking about television weathermen.  Not climatologists, not meteorologists working for the National Weather Service who provide forecasts and loads and loads of data TO the TV television weathermen.  We're talking about the guys and ladies who get on TV about every seven minutes in the morning and talk about, aka "read," the local weather forecast downloaded from NWS and supplemented with some very nice and informative graphics.  Sorry, but they simply are NOT climate experts.  It's not their job.  

And I really like our local meteorologists.  Seriously, I think they do a really good job, appear to genuinely like what they do, which is very important, and do a fine job of explaining the local WEATHER.  But I really don't care what any of them think about climate change, because they as a profession (local TV meteorologists) have no expertise on climate change.  Their job is to entertain us and get good ratings, while explaining as best they can to us ignoramuses the LOCAL WEATHER.  And that is an entirely different field than climate change and studies of climate going out decades.  

BTW, what do you think the position is of the American Meteorological Society on climate change?  You know, the position of the scientists?  

http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2007climatechange.html

It's a long statement, but you can get the gist of it with this:

Carbon dioxide concentration is rising mostly as a result of fossil-fuel burning and partly from clearing of vegetation; about 50% of the enhanced emissions remain in the atmosphere, while the rest of the Earth system continues to absorb the remaining 50%. In the last 50 years atmospheric CO2 concentration has been increasing at a rate much faster than any rates observed in the geological record of the past several thousand years. Global annual-mean surface temperatures are rising at a rapid rate to values higher than at any time in the last 400 (and probably in the last 1000) years. Once introduced in the atmosphere, carbon dioxide remains for at least a few hundred years and implies a lengthy guarantee of sustained future warming. Further, increases in greenhouse gases are nearly certain to produce continued increases in temperature. Such changes in temperature lead to changes in clouds, pressure, winds, and rainfall in a complex sequence of further effects.

Etc.  

This puts them squarely in the camp of the vast majority of the experts, which is to say they are NOT in the denier camp.  So I'm not sure if talking about the scientists with the AMS is good for your argument, since they disagree with you.  And if you talk to the average meteorologist, they're likely to label "pseudo science" as that peddled by the deniers.  In other words, the opposite of what you implied.  

Seriously, you don't want to get into an argument based on the credibility of the experts on each side, because you'll lose.  Here you have TV weathermen versus the scientists.  I'll take the scientists!!  

[Dementia_Madness]

So you disagree that a witch hunt to seek out others who scientific opinion disagrees with yours is a tactic of those who believe in pseudoscience? Here is the problem Ncvol, why the need to "expose" these meteorologists to begin with, to bring them "out of the closet" so to speak, and in fact why would or are they actually "hiding" their belief about global warming? Science is supposed to be about the search for the truth...but instead it has become the search for those who disagree with your dogma (see global warming and evolution) and then try and destroy them.

Seriously, you don't want to get into an argument based on the credibility of the experts on each side, because you'll lose.  

That is your opinion, and really it's wrong, we have debated this issue again and again, and ultimately what you give us to dispute the credibility of the "deniers" is the opinion of the "warmers" of the "deniers", circular arguments...that really don't discredit them or their science, just shows the prejudices of those seeking to "discredit" them with their opinions. Similar to your usual.."he's only a meteorologist" "she's only a geologist" They are only physicist" arguments..or "they have not published an article in five years"....talking points like "weather is not climate" blah blah blah, which are all 100% opinions and really do nothing to discredit the scientists or their opinions. In the end we have a long list of "warmers" who have been proven to have vested personal interests in "agreeing" about Anthropological Global Warming, proven to have been guilty of questionable practices, and also proven to have been associated with multiple scandals that have harmed real and genuine science and the search for truth to no end.

http://notrickszone.com/2010/08/03/climate-scandals-list-of-94-climate-gates/

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/-234092--.html

Pseudoscience. http://www.aetherometry.com/Electronic_Publications/Politics_of_Science/Global_Warming/gw_index.html

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=global+warming+scandal

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=global+warming+pseudoscience

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=global+warming+credability

http://themoderatevoice.com/118655/global-warming-credibility-problem/

credibility.

[NCVol]

Just a couple of things, science is about the search for the truth. There are thousands of scientists who spend every work day doing groundbreaking work on climate and man's contribution to changes in it.  The vast majority of those who do this daily work agree - the earth is warming and man's burning of billions of tons of carbon in an ecological blink of an eye has an effect.  The magnititude, what it will mean for various regions, what to to to stop it or mitigate it, the models to predict it - all of those are in great dispute, and hence the many active researchers trying to get a better handle. 

All I do is listen to what these experts tell me, since they are the experts.  TV weathermen aren't experts, so I don't care.  If you want to care, GREAT!  If you think the TV weathermen are right, because they reject the premise of AGW, but the scientific organization that provides their authority is wrong, because they accept that AGW is real, GREAT.  I'm not sure how you handle the cognitive dissonance, but that's not my problem. 

[Sasquatch]

Just a couple of things, science is about the search for the truth.

Like the scientist who has proven in his "research" the media is indeed liberal and liberal-biased? 

[Dementia_Madness]

Like the scientist who has proven in his "research" the media is indeed liberal and liberal-biased? 

or that black women are UGLY?

[Sasquatch]

Yes, yes. It is the "truth" they are seeking afterall. 

[NCVol]

All I know is if I want to know about climate change, I'll call up Margie Ison.  You know, she was a weather lady for decades.  I bet she has a good handle on solar forcing versus the greenhouse effect...