“Why Don’t TV Meteorologists Believe in Climate Change?”

Why Don’t TV Meteorologists Believe in Climate Change?

Climate scientists agree in vast majority that human-caused global warming is occurring. But most U.S. weather forecasters don’t. Why?

Why Don’t TV Meteorologists Believe in Climate Change? | InsideClimate News

Well that is an easy one. Meterologists reputations and livelihoods depend on being accurate.

Climate scientists have no need for accuracy. They make forecasts 100 years in the future and change them every few months or years. Their livelihood depends on playing up to liberal guilt, and scaring people to keep research money coming in. They are never held accountable for being wrong, and the bigger their tall tale, the bigger their reputation. Not until they reach old age do they consider the consequences of their misdeeds.


About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

27 Responses to “Why Don’t TV Meteorologists Believe in Climate Change?”

  1. Latitude says:

    I expect this to change……
    Claiming global weirding makes weather more chaotic and harder to predict….

    …is a weatherman’s holy grail

  2. Eric Simpson says:

    Good comments at the linked article, including 1 from me. Here’s a comment left there from Paul of Sweden:

    Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming Exists in ‘Academic Computer Models’ and nowhere else.

    How could it be possible to fool a professional meteorologist who is paid in the non-public sector that the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis which has over the last two decades been discredited by observational evidence?

    Who in their right mind would put lipstick on a pig of a theory and believe that by changing the BUZZ WORD from Global Warming to Climate Change or the new Global Weirding would distract rational observers from the facts?

    How many studies need to be done at tax payer expense by rent seeking academics who express faux outrage when thinking people reject their premises based on current observational data and historical records? …

  3. John B., M.D. says:

    Here is a different study that says 97% of climate scientists believe in AGW: http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.full
    The “other” study is the nonscientific survey that asked 2 questions, and 75 of 77 (97.4%) answered “yes” to question 2.
    The study linked to above is much more robust, but it can be rebutted (and without having to invoke conspiracy theories about peer reviewers suppressing skeptical opinions). Hint: look at the methodology of how the sample size was determined and whittled down, and how many publications does it take to consider a scientist to be an “expert?” Of course, number of publications doesn’t correlate well with quality (GIGO phenomenon).

    • I’ve reposted this from Climate Sceptic:

      I see Weirdo is Google Scholar Illiterate as well as ignorant about the scientific literature,
      Google Scholar illiteracy in the PNAS
      “A recent paper published in the PNAS, “Expert credibility in climate change” is being used as propaganda to claim that 97% of all climate scientists agree with the IPCC and the need for government action on climate change. An analysis of this paper does not support these conclusions.
      Note: All Google Scholar numerical result totals will change over time and sometimes every time you search.
      PNAS reviewers and author’s William R. L. Anderegg, James W. Prall, Jacob Harold and Stephen H. Schneider are apparently Google Scholar illiterate since searching for just the word “climate” with an author’s name will bring results from non-peer-reviewed sources such as books, magazines, newspapers, patents, citations, duplicate listings and all sorts of other erroneous results. Such as 16,000 from the Guardian, 52,000 from Newsweek and 115,000 from the New York Times. There is no “peer-reviewed journal only” search option in Google Scholar.”
      Google Scholar at the Academy (National Post, Canada)
      “The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences has utilized a non-expert to write an analysis entitled “Expert credibility in climate change.” This analysis judges the climate science credentials of scientists who have taken a position in the climate change debate, and disqualifies those who are not expert enough in climate science for its choosing.
      The non-expert writer of this analysis of credibility, James W. Prall at Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Toronto, is not only not an expert in the field of climate change, he is also not an expert in electrical and computer engineering, at least not in the sense that some might assume from his University of Toronto affiliation. Mr. Prall is an administrator who looks after computers at the university, not a scientist or even a lowly researcher in the field. If it strikes you as odd that an editor at the National Academy of Sciences would accept someone with a life-long service and programming career in the computer field to judge the academic credentials of scientists, it gets odder.
      Prall’s methodology in determining who is credible as a scientist involves the use of Google Scholar which, he explained last fall to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, “studies just the scientific literature. They look at peer-reviewed journals.” Prall uses Google Scholar to determine how often people publish and how often they are cited. Based on the number of hits that Google Scholar produces – not on any analysis of the actual content of climate studies – Prall determines scientific merit. It’s an easy and straightforward process, he explained, that anyone can perform.
      Does Google Scholar really limit itself to scholars? No. Search “Al Gore” on Google Scholar and you will find some 33,200 Scholar hits, almost 10 times as many as obtained by searching “James Hansen,” a true scientist and easily the best known of those endorsed by Prall as a bona fide believer. Neither does Google Scholar limit itself to “just the scientific literature.” Google Scholar finds articles in newspapers and magazines around the world: 113,000 in the New York Times, 22,000 in Economist, 21,000 in Le Monde, 16,000 in The Guardian.
      Prall maintains his data on a portion of the University of Toronto website (this is his personal website, and not affiliated with the university, he is careful to note). I first came across him while in the CBC’s studios last fall, when he was invited by CBC Radio to counter my views by presenting a forerunner of his study, which was then unpublished. His results then differed little in the message they conveyed: “According to Jim Prall’s database, of the 615 scientists who published papers on climate change, the sceptics are outnumbered 601 to 14,” CBC announced.
      Prall’s now-published work has some important differences. To give his work the trappings required to be published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, his study has several real scientists as co-authors, the best known and most credible among them being Stanford’s Steven Schneider, who was previously best known for predicting global cooling.
      But Prall’s reliance on Google Scholar has not changed. He even tells us what search term he used to arrive at his results – key in the author by first and last name and, to obtain “climate relevant publications,” add the term “climate.”
      Works beautifully. Al Gore turns up in such “climate sensitive” academic publications as Vanity Fair, Sierra Club Books, and HollywoodJesus.com.”

    • DirkH says:

      John B., M.D. says:
      May 8, 2012 at 8:19 pm
      “The study linked to above is much more robust, but it can be rebutted (and without having to invoke conspiracy theories about peer reviewers suppressing skeptical opinions).”

      Conspiracy theories? You obviously did miss climategate.

      • Technically, a group of individuals colluding to manipulate the peer review process does actually qualify as a conspiracy if you check the definition of the term.

      • John B., M.D. says:

        Oh, I’m suspicious of conspiracies too. I’m just saying it can be rebutted in other ways too. Will Nitschke posted a nice answer. I’d also say that volume of publication does not equal quality. The number of publications by skeptics is smaller according to the analysis, but is not trivial. The 97% number is not so high if you set the cut-off for number of publications by a particular author to, say 50.

  4. Jimbo says:

    “Why Don’t TV Meteorologists Believe in Climate Change?”

    Show me ONE TV Meteorologist who does not believe in Climate Change and I’ll show you someone who belongs in a mental asylum. Heck, I believe, in fact I know the climate changes. That’s what it’s always done. Now, I wonder they they didn’t ask:

    “Why Don’t TV Meteorologists Believe in Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming?”
    “Why Don’t TV Meteorologists Believe in Runaway Anthropogenic Global Warming?”

    They seem to think we as all so stupid that we never spotted their shift. It’s all PR now as they gave up on the science. 😉

  5. Wellwisher says:

    “Why Don’t TV Meteorologists Believe in Climate Change?” Because they “believe” in wierd stuff? Because they are simply ignorant? TV Meteorologists are empty suits.

  6. Mike Mangan says:

    Cowards. They deleted my comment. All I said was Forecast the Facts was a George Soros funded org that asks people to turn in their local TV weather for blasphemy. I said George digs this as it reminds him of turning in his fellow Jews to the Nazis when he was a wee lad. What’s wrong with that?

    • klem says:

      There was nothing wrong with that. He was a wee lad at the time, you can’t expect a child to save people when the penalty was a bullet through the brain. I don’t like Soros one bit, but you can’t look back to when he was a kid and blame him for something like that. The Nazis would kill you if you looked at them the wrong way.

  7. Alan R says:

    Where I am, they really believe in it (www.met.ie). We had one warmish week in March, and all we heard was how the temperatures were ‘wayyyy above normal’, ‘exceptionally mild’ etc etc., but since then we’ve had two really cold months, but they never say cold, they say ‘cool’, and ‘slightly below average’. So when temperatures are high, they use the loaded term ‘normal’, but when temperatures are low, they use ‘average’. Its very subtle, but drives me nuts. Maybe I’m just imagining the bias!

    • klem says:

      You’re not imagining the bias at all.

      I heard a well known scientist on the radio this morning talking about Greenland ice melting and causing the oceans to rise (and it is all our fault of course). He said the estimates were 6 to 12 inch ocean rise over the next 100 years. Thats about 2 to 3mm per year, and is actually a bit low. He made it sound like this was unbeleivably high, unprescedented. In fact 6 to 12 inches per century has been the average ocean rise for the last 20,000 years, but he neglected to mention that part. In other words, 6 to 12 inches is completely normal. Its just pure bias.

      Here’s what Wikipedia says “Since the Last Glacial Maximum about 20,000 years ago, sea level has risen by over 120 m (averaging 6 mm/yr) as a result of melting of major ice sheets.”

      But had he mentioned that 6 to 12 inches has been the normal sea level rise for milllenia, I’m sure someone would have accused him of being a denier.

  8. Dave N says:

    I used to think that they really meant “human-induced” climate change. Given that a number of alarmists seem to think the climate didn’t change before (which of course ridiculous), now I’m not so sure.

    • Tucci78 says:

      At 10:57 PM on 8 May, Dave N had written:

      Given that a number of alarmists seem to think the climate didn’t change before (which of course ridiculous), now I’m not so sure.

      That premise of bland homogeneity in pre-Industrial Age average temperature proxies is precisely what we find – like the proverbial dead and rotting mackerel on the beach in the moonlight – shining and stinking in warmista duplicities like the glorious “Hockey Stick Graph” of unconvicted co-conspirator Micheal Mann.

      The practice is known as suppressio veri, suggestio falsi.

      • Eric Simpson says:

        Yes, that seems to fit Mann & the H Stick!
        And I’m trying to get a handle on suppressio veri, suggestio falsi. A site says “Suppressio veri means suppression of the truth. Suppressio veri is a type of fraud.” Mann smoothed out the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, and radically amplified the unexceptional 20th century warming.
        What is interesting is that it could be considered fraud, even if he didn’t directly misstate data. If Mann knew that he was involved in a creative endeavor to portray things as they aren’t or weren’t, then it would be fraudulent.

        • Tucci78 says:

          At 4:32 AM on 9 May, Eric Simpson had written:

          …I’m trying to get a handle on suppressio veri, suggestio falsi. A site says “Suppressio veri means suppression of the truth. Suppressio veri is a type of fraud.”

          I picked up on the expression suppressio veri, suggestio falsi back in med school when I came across Kipling’s fix-up novel Stalky & Co., where it’s found in the first of the stories, “In Ambush.” From that lesson on how to draw intrusive and obnoxious schoolmasterly authority into embarrassment:

          “Hullo! what’s King goin’ in to him for — King and Prout?”

          Whatever the nature of that interview, it did not improve either King’s or Prout’s ruffled plumes, for, when they came out of the Head’s house, eyes noted that the one was red and blue with emotion as to his nose, and that the other was sweating profusely. That sight compensated them amply for the Imperial Jaw with which they were favored by the two. It seems — and who so astonished as they? — that they had held back material facts; were guilty both of suppressio veri and suggestio falsi (well-known gods against whom they often offended); further, that they were malignant in their dispositions, untrustworthy in their characters, pernicious and revolutionary in their influences, abandoned to the devils of wilfulness, pride, and a most intolerable conceit. Ninthly, and lastly, they were to have a care and to be very careful.

          Moved to look up the Latinism (no Intertubes back then in the Dark Ages), I found that the practice described consists in telling just enough of the truth, just selectively enough, to lead your listener to an entirely false conclusion. It’s failure “…to tell the truth, the whole truth [while nonetheless sticking to] nothing but the truth.”

          It’s a mortal sin in academic publishing, much noted in the “peer-reviewed journal articles” employed by pharma manufacturers to convince us medical types to prescribe their latest gosh-wow panaceas, and was instantly discernable when I saw more than a dozen years ago how the prosperous Medieval Warm Climate Optimum had been “disappeared” – Ministry of Truth fashion – from Mikey’s vaunted “Hockey Stick Graph.”

          Makes me wonder how Dr. Mann might respond to a regimen of neuroleptic therapy adequate in dosage and duration. If he’s not an arrant liar, he’d seem downright psychotic, wouldn’t he?

          To be a physician for a few decades is to get lied to repeatedly and shamelessly (but cleverly) in the pages of The New England Journal of Medicine and JAMA and The Lancet and all the rest of the very most reliably “peer-reviewed” periodicals in the profession.

          So it should come as no goddam surprise that a medical doctor can pick up on the way these “climatology” charlatans have been blowing smoke up the nation’s tochus while simultaneously piddling down the national leg.

          Compared to the pharmaceuticals marketers, they’re a bunch of clumsy crooks.

      • Eric Simpson says:

        Thanks Tucci for the explanation, and the bit of Kipling. And I agree with you 100% on Mann & the hockey stick. I like to say: there’s nothing wrong the climate (the h stick was debunked), and CO2 has nothing, or effectively nothing, to do with it. See algor repeat the key ipcc deception (other than the Hockey Stick) in this ~3 minute video on CO2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WK_WyvfcJyg
        A doctor, huh? It’s good the way you can bring that experience to bear on this issue, and you can see right through the bullshit artists’ duplicity and deception. Yes, they are clumsy crooks. What gets me is their never ending and obviously false predictions of doom. These predictions are laughable in their absurdity. Yet these clowns continue doing the same thing, year after year, decade after decade. A seriously broken record.

  9. philjourdan says:

    When you livelihood depends upon satisifying customers, you cannot afford to be Don Quixote. When your livelihood comes from the government, there is no motive to be accurate or right

    • Tucci78 says:

      At 2:12 PM on 9 May, philjourdan had observed:

      When you livelihood depends upon satisifying customers, you cannot afford to be Don Quixote. When your livelihood comes from the government, there is no motive to be accurate or right.

      But the porksucking government-grant-greased CRU correspondents pantsed in Climategate (along with their various co-conspirators not privileged to be honored on Phil Jones’ contacts list) do have “customers” who reward them for their efforts to give a “scientific” seeming to this preposterous “We’re All Gonna Die!” bogosity.

      They’re the politicians and banksters and self-advertisedly “green” subsidy-seeking sharpsters who batten upon this brain-dead excuse for a legitimate concern.

      I fall back (as always) on H.L. Mencken:

      Civilization, in fact, grows more and more maudlin and hysterical; especially under democracy it tends to degenerate into a mere combat of crazes; the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.

      “In Defense of Women” (1918)

      • Eric Simpson says:

        “The Urge to Save Humanity is Almost Always Only a False-Face for the Urge to Rule It” — H. L. Mencken

  10. klem says:

    “their never ending and obviously false predictions of doom. These predictions are laughable in their absurdity. Yet these clowns continue doing the same thing, year after year, decade after decade. ”

    When you view climate alarmism as a faith or quasi-religion, their behavior suddenly makes perfect sense. No matter what evidence you present which contradicts the faith, the faithful merely ignore it and carry on undaunted. This virtually defines faith.

    This is faith which possesses a god (earth), a good book (AR4), an organization (IPCC), a devil (CO2), priests (climate scientists), apostles (Gore), sinners (humanity), sinful behavior (carbon emissions), and an apocolypse (climate disaster). The only things missing are churches and a martyr.

    In a few centuries their church ceilings might have frescos of Gore and Pachaurie. Frightening thought.

  11. Climate change is real and is happening and if we don’t stop it now, a climate crisis will affect future generations to come. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha !!!!!!!! And you want me to blindly trust political science and vote for you? Ha Ha ha!!!!

  12. Help! An oil exec is holding a gun to my head and telling me what to Google, type and think! Help! That conspiracy?
    When one is paid to study the effects of climate change, one does not deny the existence of climate change.
    Almost all research was into effects (not causes), of an assumed to be real crisis that couldn’t be proven or disproved. A consultant’s wet dream come true!

    IPCC&EarthHour: “a threat to the planet.”
    The millions in the global scientific community certainly didn’t act like their kids were doomed as well. Deny that.
    CONSENSUS is with voters, not the lab coat consultants of science that also gave us pesticides don’t forget.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s