This is Not Cool. Heatwave 2011.
August 10, 2011
I hope a lot of people will see this one, which sets the current unsettling rush of climate fueled destruction in some historical perspective.
If nothing else, watch it for the surgically clean and crushing body slam of Foxpert Meteorologist, Joe Bastardi, toward the end.
Climate Denial Crock of the Week 
August 11, 2011 at 2:51 am
Great video, especially i like all the snippets from scientist about climate change. The fact that we still fight for acknowledgment, accountability, responsibility and leadership on the matter to keep our planet habitable make syou think ho wlong the denial can possible go on.
Is the human race to stupid to act in time? To stupid to advance technologies which basically all help us to live a more healthier life style and are climate friendly too.
If we do not act now the consequences are irreversible and threaten the survival of the species.
I suggest to make a compilation with quotes about the human extinction threats…
Sagan, Hawking, Hansen, Lovelock, Fenner, Asimov etc etc
Einstein fridge design can help global cooling
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/sep/21/scienceofclimatechange.climatechange
August 11, 2011 at 2:53 am
Jim Pettit wrote, “no polls–at least not ones conducted by organizations other than Fox–show that ‘most other meteorologists’ are ‘skeptical’ of CAGW. But if you have evidence to the contrary, I’d really like to see it.”
Of course I have evidence, Jim. I don’t just make things up, unlike Al Gore, and the weak sisters of the scientific community who prostitute themselves for grant money.
The Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society was, AFAIK, the first to publish the finding that that most broadcast meteorologists disagree with the IPPC claim that humans are primarily responsible for recent global warming:
http://www.heartland.org/publications/environment%20climate/article/26794/Meteorologists_Reject_UNs_Global_Warming_Claims.html
A survey of all American broadcast meteorologists by researchers at George Mason University confirmed that result:
http://www.heartland.org/full/27383/Majority_of_Broadcast_Meteorologists_Skeptical_of_Global_Warming_Crisis.html
The value of polling broadcast meteorologists rather than grant-dependent climatologists is that the former have no skin in the game, no personal interest to bias their views. It is a sad fact about humanity that most people are very good at believing what they want to believe, even when it conflicts with the best evidence. So people whose careers depend on CAGW being a real threat are absolutely the worst people to trust about it.
August 11, 2011 at 2:41 pm
Of course, it only makes sense to poll people who don’t have a need to know a subject in-depth to do their daily job. After all, we know that a good general practitioner can diagnose and treat cancer better than any oncologist, right?
“The value of polling broadcast meteorologists rather than grant-dependent climatologists is that the former have no skin in the game, no personal interest to bias their views.”
Yeah, it is great that all those independently wealthy meteorologists who work their asses off to present the weather do so for free, out of the goodness of their hearts. Nope, no potential for bias there.
I hate to break it to you, but very few climate scientists’ careers depend on CAPGW being a real threat. They will have a job and get paid whether they researched CAGW or not. CAGW is a climate phenomenon. It’s not the only phenomenon studied or possible to study in terms of climate science.
You’re right, though, that it is a very sad fact about humanity that most people are ignorant and can get conned by charlatans and fakes, especially when the best evidence is right in front of their noses.
August 11, 2011 at 5:11 pm
> The value of polling broadcast meteorologists rather than grant-dependent
> climatologists is that the former have no skin in the game, no personal
> interest to bias their views.
First I don’t think that TV weathermen have no bias, a FOX News weather-guy wouldn’t have gotten his job in the first place, if he had no bias 😉
And even if they may not have any skin in the game, they also have no knowledge in the game. Why on earth should a TV weathermen, who never has taken any lectures in climatology and who never did any climate related research whatsoever be more believable than a scientist who does climate research?? That would be as stupid as to say that because most pharmacists don’t believe in a certain scientific finding in virology, whereas most medical doctors who are specialized in virology do, that would be any reason to believe the pharmacist more, even when they never had any specialized education on virology…
Second of all: No wonder you have such diluted views, when the Heartland Institute is your source of information. You realize that they are probably the most biased people out there? as their money comes primarily from those people, who have the most skin in the game: The oil, gas and coal industry.
Why on earth should they be believable? They where wrong before with their views on smoking and cancer, where they did extensive lobbying for the tobacco industry. Now they do the same for the oil industry and you believe there lies yet again…
August 11, 2011 at 2:56 am
False climate change data a Crime Against Humanity http://climateforce.net/2011/07/05/false-climate-change-data-a-crime-against-humanity/#comment-280
August 11, 2011 at 6:06 am
daveburton
So if I understand you correctly, these TV weathermen seem to be one of three scientific organizations that I know of that Disagree with the IPCC.
The other two being the
American Association of Petroleum Geologists
Candian Society of Petroleum Geologists
How many of them have ever done any peer reviewed climate science research?
And how much do they know of the other 12 or scientific fields involved in climate research?
Meteorologists generally do not study climate change, which involves much longer time scales than weather forcasting and involves chemists, physicists, geologists, atmospheric physicists, biologists, paleoclimatologists, oceanographers, and l other specialties.
Here is the short list of professional scientific organizations, with any relevence to climate science, that Agree with the IPCC.
National Academy of Sciences (U.S.)
NASA
Woods Hole Resesarch Center
US Geological Survey (USGS)
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
American Association of State Climatologists
Federal Climate Change Science Program, 2006 (the study authorized by the Bush administration, and then Edited by a Petroleum Institute lawyer under the Bush administration, to water it down)
American Chemical Society – (world’s largest scientific organization with over 155,000 members)
Geological Society of America
American Geophysical Union (AGU)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
American Association of State Climatologists
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
American Astronomical Society
American Institute of Physics
American Meteorological Society (AMS)
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
Stratigraphy Commission – Geological Society of London – (The world’s oldest and the United Kingdom’s largest geoscience organization)
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Royal Society, United Kingdom
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society of Canada
Science Council of Japan
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Brazilian Academy of Sciences
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
French Academy of Sciences
German Academy of Natural Scientists
Indian National Science Academy
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy)
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
Union of Concerned Scientists
The Institution of Engineers Australia
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)
National Research Council
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospherice Sciences
World Meteorological Organization
State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
International Council on Science
American Physical Society (APS)
Australian Institute of Physics (AIP
European Physical Society
European Science Foundation
Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies (FASTS
Polish Academy of Sciences (PAN)
Network of African Science Academies
International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences (CAETS
European Academy of Sciences and Arts
InterAcademy Council (IAC)
International Arctic Science Committee
Arctic Council
European Federation of Geologists (EFG)
European Geosciences Union (EGU)
Geological Society of Australia
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
National Association of Geoscience Teachers (NAGT
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
American Quaternary Association (AMQUA
American Institute of Biological Sciences
American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians (AAWV
American Society for Microbiology
Institute of Biology (UK)
Society of American Foresters (SAF
August 11, 2011 at 6:11 am
A great number of TV weathermen don’t have advanced degrees and many have none
August 11, 2011 at 9:49 am
sailrick wrote, “A great number of TV weathermen don’t have advanced degrees and many have none.”
That is true, Sailrick. Those noncredentialed “weather men” have also been polled about climate change, and most of them are skeptical of CAGW, too. But that’s not who was surveyed in the two polls that I cited.
Only credentialed meteorologists were surveyed in those polls, and both the AMS and George Mason U. found that most of them are skeptical of CAGW. Uncredentialed weather presenters were excluded.
I encourage you to view the two articles to which I included links, since those facts (and a lot more details) are stated in them.
The AMS finding is particularly telling, since the American Meteorological Society still has a an official position statement (approved in 2007) on record stating that, “Despite the uncertainties noted above, there is adequate evidence from observations and interpretations of climate simulations to conclude that the atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming; that humans have significantly contributed to this change; and that further climate change will continue to have important impacts on human societies, on economies, on ecosystems, and on wildlife through the 21st century and beyond.”
Obviously, the 2007 AMS position statement is considerably more nuanced than the IPCC’s, and it is a stretch to claim that they “agree with the IPCC.” But, even so, it is obvious that their position statement is much closer to agreement with the IPCC than most of their members are.
That could be due to a disconnect between the leadership of the organization and its members; that’s not unusual in professional organizations. However, it could be just due to the passage of time. The two polls I cited were both published (and I think conducted) in 2010, so they are much more recent than the AMS’s official statement on climate change, which is due to expire in about 6 months.
A great deal has happened since 2007 to demolish the credibility of the IPCC, and diminish blind acceptance of their conclusions, particularly among meteorologists and other scientists who are well-equipped to evaluate the evidence.
August 11, 2011 at 11:01 am
As a meteorologist, I am in the position to understand why so many meteos are skeptical. I blogged about why here:
http://profmandia.wordpress.com/2010/02/26/you-don%e2%80%99t-need-a-weatherman-to-know-which-way-the-wind-blows/
To summarize:
Weather Broadcasters:
1) Not distinguishing climate modeling from weather prediction
2) Lack of access to peer-reviewed journals
3) No scientific research methods training or atrophy sets in
Degree-holding Meteorologists:
1) Climate change is missing in the curriculum
2) Not distinguishing climate modeling from weather prediction
3) Lack of access to peer-reviewed journals
One other reason not mentioned is that Joe D’Aleo is considered a god amongst many more senior broadcasters so they trust his false claims without checking his mistakes.
August 12, 2011 at 12:46 am
It’s telling how you skip over and ignore sailrick’s extensive (and correct) list of organizations that support the IPCC and focus on the TV weatherman comment.
I guess it’s easier to bullshit about weatherman than it is to dispute the positions of approximately 70, international, scientific institutions who actually know what their talking about.
To make the best of it you select a 60 word snippet from an almost 3,000 word policy statement on climate change which does little to suggest that climate change isn’t happening or a problem – much the opposite.
http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2007climatechange.html
To say that the AMS agreeing with the IPCC is a stretch leads me to one of two possible conclusions:
– A) You didn’t actually read the official policy statement of the AMS
– B) You’re deliberately cherry picking and have intentionally misrepresented their stance
Given your track record of comments here at climatecrocks, it’s hard to believe that it would be anything other than Option B.
“It is a sad fact about humanity that most people are very good at believing what they want to believe, even when it conflicts with the best evidence.”
I find it endlessly hilarious (and somewhat mystifying) that you think this statement doesn’t apply to you. You couldn’t have better described your own behaviour.
August 13, 2011 at 12:35 am
Gorbin, I didn’t respond to them because they were irrelevant to what we were talking about.
My original comment was in defense of meteorologist Joe Bastardi, since Peter “greenman3610” Sinclair singled him out for unjustified bashing.
I replied, “Joe Bastardi is not the only meteorologist who is skeptical of the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming hypothesis. Polls show that most other meteorologists are, too.”
Interestlingly, most folks here were apparently unaware of that. (If you think about that, it reveals a lot about the bias of the press.)
Kirsten simply denied it: “There is absolutely no evidence to support that claim.”
Dan Satterfield mistakenly thought that less than 35% of television meteorologists are skeptical of CAGW, and an even smaller percentage when other meteorologists are averaged in.
Reasonablemadness responded with insults & name-calling: “pure bullshit… jerks…like Joe Bastardi… liars, idiots, deranged or paid to say so.” It seemed unlikely that he would have an open mind, so I ignored him… madmen…”
prokaryotes did likewise: “you are either a bit stupid or financial motivated to post such nonsense”
Jim Pettit did, too: “denialist… low on veracity and high on wishful thinking.” But he also explicitly asked for evidence: “no polls–at least not ones conducted by organizations other than Fox–show that ‘most other meteorologists’ are ‘skeptical’ of CAGW. But if you have evidence to the contrary, I’d really like to see it.”
So I gave him the evidence that he asked for: links to two Heartland articles about independent (non-Fox!) polls demonstrating that MOST American broadcast meteorologists (not just 35%) are skeptical of CAGW.
Scott Mandia acknowledged that many meteorologists are skeptical of CAGW, though he thinks their skepticism is ill-founded. (I disagree.)
sailrick responded twice. The first called the credentialed meteorologists who were surveyed “these TV weathermen,” and gave a big list of professional organizations who have official statements on record that he claimed support the IPCC. The second one noted that “A great number of TV weathermen don’t have advanced degrees and many have none.”
Since I was talking about Joe Bastardi’s fellow meteorologists, I ignored the alleged support of the Wildlife Veterinarians, et al, for the IPCC. My response was about the AMS and meteorologists.
You, however, mischaracterized the beliefs of credentialed broadcast meteorologists as “bullshit about weathermen,” and called the Wildlife Vets “scientific institutions who actually know what their[sic] talking about.”
You also falsely characterized my quote from the soon-to-expire AMS position statement as being unrepresentative of the whole, “a 60 word snippet from an almost 3,000 word policy statement” which I “deliberately cherry pick[ed],” and claimed I “intentionally misrepresented their stance.”
Shame on you! You certainly know that’s a false accusation. The quote I used was simply the first sentence from the “final remarks” section, which summarized the 2007 position of the AMS. It is perfectly representative of the document as a whole, and you know it. Your misrepresentations are far worse than the boorish insults of Reasonablemadness and prokaryotes.
August 13, 2011 at 1:09 am
If I have video quoting Bastardi in context saying things that are demonstrably ridiculous, how is that “unjustified bashing”?
fyi, you can read more ‘unjustified bashing” in that far left wing rag, scientific american.
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/degrees-of-freedom/2011/08/11/fox-commentator-distorts-physics/
August 13, 2011 at 8:49 pm
Yes, shame on me. That’s a fine cherry pick on the American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians, by the way. I’ll grant you that one though; I should’ve probably phrased the group differently. _MOST_ are scientific institutions, my bad – how will the internets ever forgive me?
I’d grant you the point about the paragraph from the AMS positions statement, if they didn’t start it by stating that their views are very much in line with that of the IPCC, the U. S. National Academy of Sciences, and the U. S. Climate Change Science Program. This is relevant because of your assertion stating that the AMS agreeing with the IPCC is a stretch – the AMS itself would seem to disagree. Hence, you have misrepresented their stance.
I am curious about why you keep mentioning the soon-to-expire bit – do you seriously think that there’s going to be some grand reversal in the near future?
I refer to your points on weathermen as bullshit because of your evidence (if that’s what you like to call it) from the heartland institute. Two surveys representing the views of broadcast meteorologists. The AMS is comprised of 14,000+ members – the first survey in question was compiled from the results of 121 of 800 broadcast meteorologists (who were on their mailing list) and the second was from a group of 571 broadcast meteorologists. The heartland institute then takes these results and uses them to state that the AMS as a whole disagrees with the IPCC:
“The survey results support the claims of rank-and-file scientists who say global warming position statements by the bureaucratic branches of groups such as the American Meteorological Society (AMS) are out of touch with the scientific opinions of member scientists.
A position statement by the AMS Council claims, for example, “strong observational evidence and results from modeling studies indicate that, at least over the last 50 years, human activities are a major contributor to climate change” and “there is a clear consensus on projected warming rates from human influences among different models and different emission scenarios.” The survey of AMS meteorologists shows only a small minority of AMS members agree with the AMS bureaucracy’s position statement.”
To boot the first survey notes that based on the results of a previous survey, the only factor that had a statistical impact on accurate climate change knowledge was the TV forecaster’s attitudes and values on the subject. Not scientific knowledge, not years of experience, not degrees, training or seals of approval – attitudes and values. The surveys you provided were targeting people who have a tendency to approach the subject based on their own personal biases, not evidence.
Frankly, that’s enough for me to call bullshit.
August 12, 2011 at 7:45 pm
While I disagree with daveburton, I’m going to “like” his comment. Nothing wrong with respectful confrontation. It’s hard to dismiss core beliefs. We all wish climate scientists were “wrong”, but theory and empirical evidence strongly suggests otherwise. Stick around Dave with an open mind.
August 13, 2011 at 12:33 am
Thanks, Charles.
August 12, 2011 at 3:37 am
I hope the world wakes up this decade.
August 12, 2011 at 5:50 pm
[…] siamo tutt’orecchi. E se non è chieder troppo, ne informi il suo collega Joe Bastardi che un anno fa aveva previsto un’estate fresca negli Stati Uniti e in aprile una bollente in […]
August 13, 2011 at 8:47 am
I was involved in a small way on the George Mason study of TV meteorologists and while there are many who are skeptical it is by no means a majority. The main reason seems to be that they have not looked at the science closely and those what have who were skeptical have turned around completely.
Sadly when I have talked with skeptical TV mets who do have a significant background in atmospheric physics, I find they tend to repeat the same old tired myths that have long since been shown to be completely wrong. More and more though, the numbers are changing and other than people like Bastardi, there are far fewer on air folks who say things that make them look foolish.
There are several initiatives underway by the AMS and others to answer the questions of those who are skeptical and I have been a part of these. They’ve been very successful and education is the key. Only those who cannot separate scientific fact from their world view remain dubious after they spend a significant amount of time looking at the overwhelming science.
As Neil de Grasse Tyson says- “The laws of Physics are real, everything else is politics.”
Dan Satterfield
Chief Meteorologist
WHNT TV
Huntsville AL
Member AMS Committee on Station Science
August 13, 2011 at 8:51 am
Corrected for error in first paragraph
I was involved in a small way on the George Mason study of TV meteorologists and while there are many who are skeptical it is by no means a majority. The main reason seems to be that they have not looked at the science closely. Those that have spent the time to do this have turned around completely and I am one of them.
Sadly, when I have talked with skeptical TV mets who do have a significant background in atmospheric physics, I find they tend to repeat the same old tired myths that have long since been shown to be completely wrong. More and more though, the numbers are changing and other than people like Bastardi, there are far fewer on air folks who say things that make them look foolish.
There are several initiatives underway by the AMS and others to answer the questions of those who are skeptical and I have been a part of these. They’ve been very successful and education is the key. Only those who cannot separate scientific fact from their world view remain dubious after they spend a significant amount of time looking at the overwhelming science.
As Neil de Grasse Tyson says- “The laws of Physics are real, everything else is politics.”
Dan Satterfield
Chief Meteorologist
WHNT TV
Huntsville AL
Member AMS Committee on Station Science
August 13, 2011 at 12:41 pm
Here are some excerpts from the Heartland article on the AMS survey.
The AMS study found:
———-( begin excerpt )———-
* Only 24 percent of the survey respondents agree with United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assertion, “Most of the warming since 1950 is very likely human-induced.”
* Only 19 percent agree with the claim, “Global climate models are reliable in their projection for a warming of the planet.”
* Only 19 percent agree with the assertion, “Global climate models are reliable in their projections for precipitation and drought.”
* Only 45 percent disagree with Weather Channel cofounder John Coleman’s strongly worded statement, “Global warming is a scam.”
… The survey of AMS meteorologists shows only a small minority of AMS members agree with the AMS bureaucracy’s position statement. … Joe D’Aleo, executive director of the International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project and first director of meteorology at the Weather Channel, is not surprised by the survey results. … “From my observation, the opinion of broadcast meteorologists on this is issue is similar to the opinions of all fields of practicing meteorologists,” D’Aleo concluded.
———-( end excerpt )———-
You wrote, “There are several initiatives underway by the AMS and others to answer the questions of those who are skeptical and I have been a part of these. They’ve been very successful and education is the key.”
But the article discussed those initiatives, too:
———-( begin excerpt )———-
“AMS has tried very hard to brainwash broadcast meteorologists by forcing them to attend conferences and teleconferences with one-sided presentations where global warming evangelism is preached,” D’Aleo said. “Broadcasters send me notifications they get from AMS telling them they must attend these conferences where only the alarmist point of view is preached. This survey shows that broadcast meteorologists are not swayed by these one-sided presentations.”
———-( end excerpt )———-
August 13, 2011 at 1:10 pm
The problem for the alarmists is that the more someone studies the science, the more plain it becomes that that the computer models upon which the alarmist predictions depend, like the most famous alarmists themselves, are thoroughly unreliable.
My own journey to climate realism began with Climategate. Before that, I was simply uncertain, and frankly wasn’t paying all that much attention. I was aware of and somewhat bemused by the argument. But Climategate shocked me. I was astonished by the widespread and profound corruption and dishonesty among leading “climate scientists” which it revealed.
Still, even then, I was unsure. Just because they were dishonest, it didn’t mean they were necessarily wrong.
But I noticed something slightly odd at NOAA.gov: a table of sea level trends for the 159 GLOSS-LTT tide stations around the globe, which had something missing:
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/MSL_global_trendtable.html
I saw that at some stations sea level was rising, but at others it was falling, and the odd part: I scrolled to the end of the table and saw that there was no line showing the average.
Why not, I wondered? Surely, whoever did that table must have calculated the average. It should be roughly the same as the very widely reported global rate of sea level rise: 2.1 to 2.2 mm/year. So why isn’t the average shown in that table?
My nasty, suspicious mind smelled a rat.
So I downloaded the data, and loaded it into a spreadsheet. (The web page turned out to be an exported Excel spreadsheet, which made it easy.)
I calculated the average sea level trend for all the GLOSS-LTT stations. It was just 0.6 mm/year! Less than 1/3 the claimed rate!!
No wonder NOAA didn’t include the average in their table.
I tried weighting the average the tide stations according to how long they’d been operating: 0.5 mm/year!
I found the median: 1.1 mm/year!
I even did an analysis of correlation vs. distance between stations, and on that basis I calculated a distance-weighted average for sea level rise: 1.1 mm/year!
There simply was no way to reconcile the actual, measured rates of sea level rise with the IPCC/alarmist claims.
I also put together an augmented version of their table, with links to NOAA and PMSL pages about each tide station, where you can see the graphed changes. From those graphs, and also contrary to the IPCC’s alarmist claims, you can see that there’s absolutely no sign of any acceleration in rate of sea level rise at the GLOSS-LTT tide stations in response to increased atmospheric CO2 levels.
Plainly, Hansen et al have been lying about sea level, as they lied about temperatures. And I *HATE* being lied to.
For more details of my analysis of the GLOSS-LTT sea level data, including a link to my augmented version of NOAA’s table, see:
http://tinyurl.com/MSLavg2
August 13, 2011 at 4:09 pm
we await your publication in a reputable journal. surely this work will win you many high awards.
August 14, 2011 at 3:37 am
GreenMan Peter, aren’t you bothered that Hansen & the IPCC are lying about sea level rise?
In this very thread, prokaryotes called false climate change data “a Crime Against Humanity.” (I agree in the literal sense, though not in the sense of the ICC’s definition.) But YOU don’t seem to care about it at all.
How can two people with such opposite attitudes about Truth be on the same side of the debate about climate change??
August 14, 2011 at 10:02 am
I would certainly be bothered by that if it were shown to be true.
The way we determine what is objectively true is to allow scientists to present their data in a refereed forum.
I await your publication in a peer reviewed journal that all can examine.
This series is not about second guessing people who have spent their careers tromping the ice cores and reading satellite data. I leave that to anonymous internet conspiracy theorists.
Dull as it seems, I have to content myself with the mainstream science, from from such groups as Nasa, the National Academy, and the US Navy.
August 14, 2011 at 6:14 pm
An appeal to authority is a weak rebuttal to actual proof, Peter.