Posted on 12/07/2016 6:42:21 AM PST by rktman
“Last week, Breitbart dot com published an article claiming that global warming was nothing but a scare and global temperatures were actually falling, Problem is, they used a compeltely unrelated video about La Nina — with my face in it! — to attempt to back their point,” said meteorologist Kait Parker, in her scathing takedown.
Before listing step-by-step how and why Breitbart’s article is all wrong, she said, “Here’s the thing: science doesn’t care about your opinion. Cherry-picking and twisting the facts will not change the future, nor the fact — note: fact, not opinion — that the earth is warming.”
(Excerpt) Read more at mediaite.com ...
Weather channel has been in nbc/msnbc’s back pocket for some time now. I’ve seen ‘em shoehorn politics into their weather reporting on may occasions.
Keep in mind - The Weather Channel is a sister network of the Clinton News Network (CNN).
Hey, weather organizations are BETTING HEAVILY on the hoax of man-made GW to generate “watching hype” -— they will take ANY SCAM and support it if it makes money. No matter how fraudulent it is.
Global Warming fits the MSM agenda nicely.
Just those words are enough. You can leave out “man made”, “harmful”, “temporary” and other descriptors that would change the meaning.
Just say “global warming” or “immigration”.
Didn’t they learn anything in 2016?
I am SOOOO glad that Verizon FiOS told The Weather Channel to take a hike and removed TWC from its service. Why should Verizon’s customers pay for TWC’s propaganda and lies.
the founder of the weather channel, John Coleman, says global warming is a hoax. Wonder why the article doesn’t mention that?
“Cherry-picking and twisting the facts will not change the future, nor the fact — note: fact, not opinion — that the earth is warming.”
Nor will it change the fact that there’s very little empirical evidence that said warming is all or even mostly anthropogenic.
As for cherry-picking and twisting the facts: Ben Santer, Tom Karl, and you sweetie-pie, need to look in the mirror.
What is in dispute, by reputable climate researchers, is:
1) How much warming. The historical data has been revised and 'corrected' downward several times over the past ten years, giving the appearance of more warming in the present than the original raw data suggested. And
2) What is the cause of the warming. We now have over 20 years of computer modeling of the effects of CO2 induced warming, and the actual numbers have fallen far short of all of the predictions.
Founder of the Weather Channel, John Coleman Debunks the Myth of Global Warming
https://www.youtube.com/v/D8FhmuWWcGw
“Here’s the thing: science doesn’t care about your opinion. Cherry-picking and twisting the facts will not change the future, nor the fact — note: fact, not opinion — that the earth is warming.”
But funding scientists will change science. Where are all the hurricanes that were supposed to occur after Katrina?
I don’t think, Kait Parker, is still with The Weather Channel. She had a contract dispute last year. I maybe wrong.
The Weather Channel—they’re the ones that give silly names to snowstorms.
The science in this instance was done by Hendrk Svensmark with 10 years of laboratory experiments. His book “The Chilling Stars” proves that our climate is determined by an interaction between the solar wind and cosmic radiation from the Milky Way which our solar system is in.
I was not aware that the “Weather Channel” actually covered weather? I thought they just had reality shows and displayed you-tube videos in between having the presenters chat with each.
quote “science doesn’t care about your opinion”
oh really? what about the “science” paid for by the tobacco companies in the 50’s and 60’s which stated that not only was smoking not bad for you.. but that is was “good” for you?
oh! so ... THAT kind of science is bad?
ok... what if we only look at “science” on polution and climate paid for by energy companies?
oh! so... THAT kind of science isn’t to be trusted either!
AMAZING!
ok.. then.... WHY IN THE HELL should we believe the “science” paid for, conducted, and modeled by environmentalists?
You think environmentalists are any more unbiased than the scientists paid with tobacco or energy company dollars?
BS
the data has been corrupted and can not be trusted.
Well it’s colder than crap here and going to be 20 degrees colder than normal by tomorrow so I don’t know all about that global warming being real but I know it will sell the hell out of carbon credits, spark new startups to find investors to swindle, and fund scientists on the government teat for years to come. BTW how do we know all the data they are putting out isn’t selective or manipulated? Hell everything else the Obama administration puts out is....: )
It is sad that a bunch of liberal arts majors think they are scientists.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.