Posted on 02/14/2010 10:09:08 AM PST by ricks_place
We now take you live to a storm within the ranks of America’s weathercasters.
It is a quiet controversy about global warming. At least one local broadcaster had been hoping to keep it quiet.
But after considerable persuasion last week, the Fox affiliate WDAF reluctantly allowed its chief meteorologist, Mike Thompson, to explain in an e-mail to The Kansas City Star why he breaks from the scholarly worldview of the causes of climate change.
“It has become completely political — it’s not about science at all,” he wrote in an e-mail. “If science were the objective, then we would be seeing an entirely different debate. But there are agendas at play, and it has undermined the credibility of climate science.”
Others in his profession share that view.
“Global warming is the greatest scam in history,” blogged a veteran TV weatherman in San Diego, John Coleman, in late 2007. He then appeared on Glenn Beck’s show.
That hardly stunned University of Texas researcher Kris Wilson, who for years has probed the wide range of attitudes, values and skill sets of those beamed into your living room to chat up the weather.
What did surprise Wilson was that 29 percent of meteorologists in a modest survey he conducted took Coleman’s side — “a scam,” they called the scare.
And a clear majority of 121 weathercasters polled — 62 percent — said they thought climate models were unreliable for predicting temperatures and sea levels to come.
It is important to know that meteorologists are not climatologists.
(Excerpt) Read more at kansascity.com ...
Not only does this gorebal menace choose the most extreme, rigged, fabricated scientific data he can conjure up, he willingly, shamelessly announces his ignorance for the record — to further the global governance agenda. This egocentric charlatan must dream of being crowned king of the world in the near future … and a dream it will remain, Your HOAXness.
Yeah but it's more important to know that Algore is not a climatologist. Hell not even the head of the IPCC is a climatologist. He's a frick'n railroad engineer for crying out load. At least meteorology is in the immediate neighborhood.
I have always liked Mike Thompson since he came to Kansas City local. I am glad to know that my gut was right that he is not one of those Algore/weatherchannel weather loons.
Others have been ridiculed for less...we have Truthers; Birthers...I recommend ‘Gorethers’ for those who blindly ignore actual science; refuse to see the scams and fraud; and follow AGW with religious zeal. Gorethers!
I hope history will ID you as one of the early fighters who brought this to light.
Thanks for the info!
“It is important to know that meteorologists are not climatologists.”
It is also important to know that if meteorologists are frequently wrong about tommorrow’s weather why should we listen to what a climatologist says the weather will be in 50 years.
I worked at the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey Penisula, Ca. from 1966-1970.
One year was spent doing a lot of the data interpolation, filling out Fortran sheets for keypunch and field chart ‘smoothing’ for a climatological study of the existing hurricane forecast and actual position out to 72 hours.
This was a project of Robert Renard Jr. for which a better methodology was developed along with improved algorithms which were then incorporated into the current Numerical Weather Center located on campus.
Climatology was a subset of meteorology practices that allowed for the analysis of past weather events with an eye to determining repeating patterns, not reconstructing them and ignoring the obviously cyclical nature to devising an assumed ‘forced’ outcome that had never before been seen.
If a stack of marbles will collapse after three layers every time one attempts to add the fourth layer it would be quite a stretch to imagine that they could stack to the sky if only an imaginary ‘glue’ was applied, yet that is the equivalent of what we are being asked to accept today.
It is also important to know that if meteorologists are frequently wrong about tommorrow’s weather why should we listen to what a climatologist says the weather will be in 50 years.
If you get the mechanics right, I would say it's easier to understand long range stuff than it is to understand "day-to-day" stuff. The "big picture" is much easier than the tiny details of daily weather forecasting.
If you know an El Nino is building, it's easier to say that the Pacific Northwest will be drier than normal, California will be getting a lot of rains and storms from the Pineapple Express and that Oklahoma will be wetter than normal in winter.
But, if you want to say that Tulsa will be 33 degrees tomorrow instead of perhaps 35 degrees and that Dallas is going to get 3 inches of snow, instead of the 14 inches that fell in parts (because of a drop of a couple of degrees of temperature) -- that's much harder.
So, I think the long-range guys have an easier time of it, than the guys who say what is happening tonight or tomorrow or the next day...
And, another example is that because of the low sunspot activity and that we're in a Dalton-minimum-type of situation now, I can say that we're going to have about a decade of colder weather -- but -- don't ask me what the temperature is going to be where you live about ten days from now -- because that's too difficult of a question.... you see... LOL...
I think you've got it backwards as to what is more difficult and what is easier... :-)
From the article...”It is important to know that meteorologists are not climatologists.”
It is important to know that the myriads of proponents of global warming are generally not scientists. Politics has trumped science in the issues of global warming.
What we know from history is that global mean temps are cyclic. These cycles are related to the sun, not to any of the puny contributions man has ever made, or ever will make.
I think what makes it easier to make a long-term forecast of decades out is the simple fact that there won’t be many people left to tell you how wrong you were.
A quick glance at history shows us that not a single major prediction involving earth-changing events has proved so.
LOL... pretty funny... all your critics have died... :-)
But, you’ll notice that I said I was able to make “long-range” forecast (of a limited nature, admittedly, but still I can do it...).
I know what happens when we start entering an El Nino effect because of what happens in the Pacific Northwest (in the past). The same thing can be predicted to happen again, as it all goes together, you see. That’s why it’s easier to make longer-range predictions, as opposed to what is happening the day after tomorrow.
With the El Nino effect, California gets those rains from the Pineapple Express, it makes its way over Oklahoma as a result. A lot of that has been happening recently in California and Oklahoma recently.
And on top of that, I can tell that we’re entering a prolonged cold spell, because of the lowered sunspot activity, similar to a Dalton minimum, which does produce colder weather.
And so, I think I would make a pretty good long range forecaster but a lousy “day-to-day” forecaster... you see... :-)
Quite so, but the forecast for runaway warming is based on a total break from the cycles of the past which leaves it without historic foundation.
It rests on the models alone; it is popularized and sold in the same manner of New and Improved Tide.
“If anything, people with common sense should welcome warmer climates. It has been during warm periods that life on our planet has thrived. Basically, the entire history of life on our planet has been between ice ages. Life advances between Ice Ages, and is suppressed or nearly non existent during Ice Ages. Those are the facts. Ask any geologist.”
Well said. This is what has always eaten at me about this nonsense. Read up on Eric the Red, the Vikings were farming in Greenland back in the early part of the last millenium, until the winters got so bad it ran them out. When you have this Phil Jones guy saying it might have been warmer in the past you just know he is completely ignoring the facts of climate history on this planet.
Title sucks. There IS NO science of global warming. That is the entire point. There is no scientific data supporting a strong continuous planetary warming trend and there is no scientific data supporting that the earth’s climate is significantly impacted by man’s activities.
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.