Ask Experts Questions for FREE Help !
Ask
    speechlesstx's Avatar
    speechlesstx Posts: 1,111, Reputation: 284
    Ultra Member
     
    #1

    Jan 30, 2012, 03:02 PM
    D*mn the torpedoes, purge the deniers!
    In yet another extraordinary display of open-mindedness, tolerance and respect for freedom of speech, a group called "Forecast the Facts" has threatened meteorologists to hop on the climate change bandwagon or else.

    Concerned that too many “deniers” are in the meteorology business, global warming activists this month launched a campaign to recruit local weathermen to hop aboard the alarmism bandwagon and expose those who are not fully convinced that the world is facing man-made doom.

    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.”

    “We track the views of meteorologists through their on-air statements, blog posts, social media activity, public appearances, interviews, and interactions with viewers,” the campaign explains.

    The Houston Chronicle noted that meteorologists mostly track short periods of weather, not long-term climate trends.
    Obviously, only science, opinions and now daily weather forecasts that support the "consensus" (read: agenda) on anthropogenic global warming are to be tolerated. Thinking and speaking for oneself is not allowed.

    Why don't more of you find that disturbing?
    paraclete's Avatar
    paraclete Posts: 2,706, Reputation: 173
    Ultra Member
     
    #2

    Jan 30, 2012, 04:40 PM
    I find the whole global warming debate disturbing. We have seen this thing take on the proportions of a religion with it's tunnel vision fundamentalism.

    Why are we not allowed to know the truth, that we are all being conned by environmental interests. Even if AGW is actually happening, there is little we can do to abate the effects. The stable door is open and the horse has bolted. What these people are suggesting is not that we buy another horse, but that we get the whole country involved in searching for the horse
    tomder55's Avatar
    tomder55 Posts: 1,742, Reputation: 342
    Ultra Member
     
    #3

    Jan 30, 2012, 05:16 PM
    Wonder which 401c3 organization funded by the Goracle is sponsoring this ?
    TUT317's Avatar
    TUT317 Posts: 657, Reputation: 76
    Senior Member
     
    #4

    Jan 30, 2012, 05:19 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    In yet another extraordinary display of open-mindedness, tolerance and respect for freedom of speech, a group called "Forecast the Facts" has threatened meteorologists to hop on the climate change bandwagon or else.



    Obviously, only science, opinions and now daily weather forecasts that support the "consensus" (read: agenda) on anthropogenic global warming are to be tolerated. Thinking and speaking for oneself is not allowed.

    Why don't more of you find that disturbing?

    I don't find it disturbing at the moment because a few things don't seems to add up.

    A meteorologist is a person with specific post graduate qualifications. The majority of people who do the T.V. weather are personalities. They don't have formal qualifications in the area of weather forecasting. A few may have formal qualification in this area, but most don't. Most are not meteorologists.

    Is this the problem?

    A lot of people who see T.V. weather people think such people must be qualified in the area of weather forecasting.

    Have some T.V. weather people taken advantage of this knowledge gap and put forward comments about the lack of climate change based on the day to day figures they put out to the public?

    Is it possible that T.V. weather viewers mistakenly think they are being providing them with a professional opinion in regards to lack of global warming?

    Quite possible considering that the majority of T.V. weather people don't believe there is global warming.

    Is this an attempt by a particular group of people (350 org.) to balance things up? I would be interested in seeing the actual blog.

    Tut
    speechlesstx's Avatar
    speechlesstx Posts: 1,111, Reputation: 284
    Ultra Member
     
    #5

    Jan 31, 2012, 09:11 AM
    Tut, here's their website, have at it.

    I don't see how that would change my question, that regardless of who it is, the consensus science crowd want to silence others and purge anyone who doesn't walk in lockstep with them. You don't find that disturbing? I do, on a grand scale.
    excon's Avatar
    excon Posts: 21,482, Reputation: 2992
    Uber Member
     
    #6

    Jan 31, 2012, 09:18 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    Why don't more of you find that disturbing?
    Hello Steve:

    I don't need no stinkin scientist to tell me that throwing your trash into the air ain't good. Does the politics surrounding the issue disturb me?? No more than the politics surrounding intelligent design does. Would the world be better off if it agreed with me? Yup.

    excon
    ebaines's Avatar
    ebaines Posts: 12,132, Reputation: 1307
    Expert
     
    #7

    Jan 31, 2012, 10:45 AM
    I think it's a little extreme tio go after local TV weather men, given that most "meteroligists" on TV really aren't - they're models who get paid to read the forecast. I don't expect them to be experts in climate change. It's not like a biology teacher denying evolution in class, or a geology teacher denying plate tectonics, or a history teacher denying the holocaust - acts which would be grounds for losing one's job (IMHO).
    paraclete's Avatar
    paraclete Posts: 2,706, Reputation: 173
    Ultra Member
     
    #8

    Jan 31, 2012, 02:31 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by excon View Post
    Would the world be better off if it agreed with me? Yup.

    excon
    Another strawman Ex or is it the same tired strawman reversed. Fact is I don't find grounds to agree with you very often so the answer to your question is No!

    I have decided that I will not modify my lifestyle because some nitwit thinks the Earth is warming when all the evidence around me tells me that the climate is changing but if anything it is getting colder. I haven't seen anything that looks like the heat waves of my youth in years.

    Here we have just had a state government reverse a stupid decision where they removed standard unleaded petrol from the market to supposedly reduce CO2 emissions. A nanny state decision based on bad science and even worse politics
    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/en...131-1qrh1.html

    These nitwits think that they can force the market to do their will by removing choice which is no different to someone trying to remove opposing opinions from the public forum. In this case they have legislated a legitimate product out of existence. I wish they would legislate tobacco out of existence just as easily, talk about throwing your garbage in someoneelses air.
    TUT317's Avatar
    TUT317 Posts: 657, Reputation: 76
    Senior Member
     
    #9

    Jan 31, 2012, 02:39 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    Tut, here's their website, have at it.

    I don't see how that would change my question, that regardless of who it is, the consensus science crowd want to silence others and purge anyone who doesn't walk in lockstep with them. You don't find that disturbing? I do, on a grand scale.

    Hi Speech,

    I couldn't get past the first page because you have to sign up as a member.

    Nonetheless, I think I see what they are getting at.

    Firstly, I think they are confusing meteorologists with T.V. weather personalities. Some of the example comments given by the website seem to be a mixture of professional and non-professional opinions on climate change. The mistake appears to be lumping them all together as meteorological opinions.

    Secondly, it is also worth keeping in mind that actual meteorologists are not climate change experts, they tend to be experts in short term weather prediction. Everyone, is entitled to their opinion on climate change, expert, non-expert or otherwise. However, I think this is where the problem begins.

    There are a significant number of people who have little contact with science on a day to day basis. The only 'science' they get daily is watching the weather on T.V.

    For example,when a weather personality gives hisher weather report and then adds that these figures have nothing to do with global warming it creates confusion in the minds of some people in their audience. They wrongly think that because this person does the weather he/she is an expert in this area and they have been given an expert opinion.

    Having said all of that,I am unaware for any weather personality with no formal qualifications who has gone 'on air' and falsely claimed they are meteorologists. It is not their fault if some people jump to the wrong conclusion and assume they are a weather expert.

    Given all of this I think we have journalistic ethical problem starting to bubble to the surface. Global warming or climate change is an important public issue, especially on T.V. Therefore I think anyone who wants to comment on global warming or the lack of it while 'on air' has an obligation to inform people in their audience who may have jumped to the wrong conclusion.

    If a T.V. weather person wants to claim these figures have nothing to do with climate change and they have no formal qualifications in the area then they should make this known to the public. Better still refrain from comment altogether.

    The scope and importance of the global warming issue, or lack of warming requires some journalistic standard to be introduced. I think this is what that website is really getting at but they are doing it in a very clumsy way.

    If it's not what they are on about then it ought to be.

    Tut
    speechlesstx's Avatar
    speechlesstx Posts: 1,111, Reputation: 284
    Ultra Member
     
    #10

    Jan 31, 2012, 02:54 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by excon View Post
    Hello Steve:

    I don't need no stinkin scientist to tell me that throwing your trash into the air ain't good. Does the politics surrounding the issue disturb me??? No more than the politics surrounding intelligent design does. Would the world be better off if it agreed with me? Yup.

    excon
    Oh pooh, you still throwing that straw man out there? No one argues FOR dirty air. The question is does that affect our climate? There is legitimate evidence to say it doesn't and a REAL scientist would consider it.

    And to take your other example, I think the world would be better off if it agreed with me so why should I be silenced while you get to keep spewing your nonsense? That is what the AGW alarmists are trying to do, silence dissent. That's a difference between me and them, I will cheerfully and forcefully defend theirs and your right to be wrong.
    speechlesstx's Avatar
    speechlesstx Posts: 1,111, Reputation: 284
    Ultra Member
     
    #11

    Jan 31, 2012, 03:10 PM
    Tut, this is all I need to see to know their agenda:

    55 Identified as deniers of climate change

    Are they the new McCathyites on a witch hunt to purge society of "deniers"? Yes, they're building their list and that quite frankly, frightens me a little when someone starts targeting groups of people to be forced into agreement or be silenced.
    TUT317's Avatar
    TUT317 Posts: 657, Reputation: 76
    Senior Member
     
    #12

    Jan 31, 2012, 04:00 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    Tut, this is all I need to see to know their agenda:

    55 Identified as deniers of climate change

    Are they the new McCathyites on a witch hunt to purge society of "deniers"? Yes, they're building their list and that quite frankly, frightens me a little when someone starts targeting groups of people to be forced into agreement or be silenced.


    If there are 55 'T.V. meteorologists' adding anti global warming comments at the end of their presentation then they have a responsibility to stop doing this. In exactly the same way if there are 55 'T.V meteorologists' adding pro-global warming comments at the end of their presentation then they have the same responsibility to stop.

    Day to day weather patterns don't provide any evidence for global or lack of global warming. As I said before to make such comments is irrelevant and misleading.

    I am all for a campaign to impose standards in this regard. Day to day forecasting should not be used as a propaganda tool one way or the other.

    If these people are saying or doing anything else on their website then they are wrong.

    Tut
    tomder55's Avatar
    tomder55 Posts: 1,742, Reputation: 342
    Ultra Member
     
    #13

    Jan 31, 2012, 04:22 PM
    Given all of this I think we have journalistic ethical problem starting to bubble to the surface... The scope and importance of the global warming issue, or lack of warming requires some journalistic standard to be introduced.
    We've been mentioning that for years. The major networks here at least have thinly veiled agendas .Until the advent of the alternate media ,they were considered gate keepers of the truth. What a naiive times they were !
    paraclete's Avatar
    paraclete Posts: 2,706, Reputation: 173
    Ultra Member
     
    #14

    Jan 31, 2012, 05:13 PM
    And you don't think we live niaive times? How stupid could we be to believe what media serves up to us as truth?
    tomder55's Avatar
    tomder55 Posts: 1,742, Reputation: 342
    Ultra Member
     
    #15

    Jan 31, 2012, 05:14 PM
    That fact that people recognize it now is a very positive development.
    speechlesstx's Avatar
    speechlesstx Posts: 1,111, Reputation: 284
    Ultra Member
     
    #16

    Jan 31, 2012, 05:19 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by TUT317 View Post
    I am all for a campaign to impose standards in this regard. Day to day forecasting should not be used as a propaganda tool one way or the other.
    And my point is that the AGW alarmists shouldn't be employing propaganda as a tool to enact their agenda either. In spite of their propaganda the science is not settled, all research should be considered, not just that which supports AGW momentum and to squelch evidence that contradicts their agenda and attempt to silence those who disagree is not only wrong, it's damn wrong.
    excon's Avatar
    excon Posts: 21,482, Reputation: 2992
    Uber Member
     
    #17

    Jan 31, 2012, 07:17 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    the science is not settled
    Hello again, Steve:


    I thought we established that throwing your trash into the air isn't good. Are you now saying that it MIGHT be good depending on what science determines??

    Were you placating me?

    excon
    speechlesstx's Avatar
    speechlesstx Posts: 1,111, Reputation: 284
    Ultra Member
     
    #18

    Feb 1, 2012, 09:31 AM
    I didn't stutter, throwing trash into the air isn't good - but that doesn't mean it's altering the climate.
    excon's Avatar
    excon Posts: 21,482, Reputation: 2992
    Uber Member
     
    #19

    Feb 1, 2012, 09:42 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    I didn't stutter, throwing trash into the air isn't good - but that doesn't mean it's altering the climate.
    Hello again, Steve:

    Ok, NOW we're getting somewhere... What KIND of bad things happen when you throw your trash into the air? Why WOULDN'T it alter the climate? It alters the air.

    Additionally, whatever the downsides of throwing trash into the air are, why WOULDN'T we move to curb it, even IF global warming IS BS?

    excon
    tomder55's Avatar
    tomder55 Posts: 1,742, Reputation: 342
    Ultra Member
     
    #20

    Feb 1, 2012, 10:02 AM
    Didn't know carbon dioxide was "trash" .

Not your question? Ask your question View similar questions

 

Question Tools Search this Question
Search this Question:

Advanced Search

Add your answer here.


Check out some similar questions!

I purge myself.but I'm not bulimic I don't think [ 5 Answers ]

Okay, so I have been dealing with overeating and the vomiting on and off again for about six years now, but I have never had a serious problem with it. I will go through spurts where I will throw up a lot, but never over periods of two weeks before I give it a rest for a while. I usually don't...

Faulty evep purge [ 1 Answers ]

I'm aware of some issues with a faulty evap purge solenoid but my question is to what extent would you get poor idling and surging because of it? I've read about it but not everything is as clear as books try to sound


View more questions Search