Forecastthefacts.org – Political Activists Gagging Our TV Meteorologists on Climate Issues

UPDATE: 1/23/12 11AMPST Exposed – Forecastthefacts.org is a George Soros funded activist website. See details below.

By Michael A. Lewis, PhD. and Anthony Watts

Some one or some organization is attempting to influence the upcoming annual meeting of the American Meteorological Society (AMS).

According to WCTV-TV’s story  Urging American Meteorological Society to Get Tougher on Climate Change, a program called Forecast the Facts is attempting to lobby the AMS to change their 5-year policy on climate change to a new policy “drafted by a panel of [unidentified] experts” (emphasis added).

A new campaign, Forecast the Facts (www.forecastthefacts.org), launches Sunday to pressure TV meteorologists to inform their viewers about climate change. The launch coincides with the kick-off of the American Meteorological Society’s (AMS) annual meeting in New Orleans, LA.

“This is an important moment in the history of the AMS,” said Daniel Souweine, the campaign’s director. “It’s well known that large numbers of meteorologists are climate change deniers. It’s essential that the AMS Council resist pressure from these deniers and pass the strong statement currently under consideration.”

The “Campaign Director” is identified as Daniel Souweine. The Forecast the Facts web site turns out to be a product of “Citizen Engagement Laboratory (CEL).”

And who is the Chief of Staff of CEL? You guessed it: Daniel Souweine. Here’s his Facebook page.

The web site describes CEL as: “a non-profit, non-partisan organization that uses digital media and technology to amplify the voices of underrepresented constituencies. We seek to empower individuals to take collective action on the issues that concern them, promoting a world of greater equality and justice in the process.”

But as we see elsewhere, in the green incubator building description of CEL at the David Brower Center at 2150 Allston Way, Berkeley, CA, that “non-partisan” claim doesn’t match this description:

So much for the “truth in advertising”.

They also go to trouble to obfuscate their website domain, here is the WHOIS results for forecastthefacts.org and .com:

Interesting thing though, is that when you check to see what other web servers are at the same domain IP address, you discover a whole flock of political activist websites:

Turn Off Fox, “bastadobbs” (to get Lou Dobbs fired from CNN), occupyhomes ( an occupywallstreet spinoff), and trail2010 (a website pushing a vote for the Dream Act) are just a few of the “non-partisan” websites run by the same outfit on the same server.

And then there’s the usual suspects friends of forecastthefacts.org

The CEL web site lists 350.org as a “Partner,” which describes itself as: “building a global grassroots movement to solve the climate crisis. Our online campaigns, grassroots organizing, and mass public actions are led from the bottom up by thousands of volunteer organizers in over 188 countries.”

Sounds like birds of a feather, even though they are both attempting to lobby a major national organization to change a policy that affects all of its members… from the top down. Hardly grass-roots organization. And hardly on behalf of “underrepresented constituencies.”

Evidently, grassroots meteorologists are insufficiently toeing the line when it comes to laying weather patterns at the feet of “global warming.” Someone unnamed wants them to publicly join the global warming bandwagon in blaming human CO2 emissions for observed climate change, ignoring the uncertainty of climate science, ignoring all evidence to the contrary, insisting on one single simplistic explanation for climate change.

Here’s the video where they roll out their immutable “weather is not climate unless we say it is” logic:

TV weather presenters, even those who are qualified meteorologists endorsed by the AMS, are the most visible source of public information about weather and climate. They appear daily to billions of people, and whether or not it is a good idea, their “opinions” about climate change carry a lot of weight in popular culture. It’s no wonder that those whose interests are served by spreading fear of climate change in support of a predetermined economic outcome are after these “grass roots” who fail to tremble in fear of natural climate phenomena.

This is not grass roots, this is Big Money come to the service of shadowy figures in the background of international politics and economics. Who profits from fear of climate change? Who is funding this program to gag independent meteorologists and TV weather presenters?

This is part of a concerted behind-the-scenes program funded by monied interests to subvert all elements of environmental awareness and activism to the cause of money and power, political and economic influence. Global warming hyperbole has been used to discredit free-thinking, independent scientific research, free expression, free thought and free action. The individuals and corporations funding this movement are laying the ground work for society controlled by corporate-government-military oligarchies to maintain the economic and political status quo.

Follow the money…

=================

Now here is where this campaign is likely to backfire, and backfire big. These activist dolts don’t know much about television news, or they would have figured this out ahead of time. I spent over two decades of my life in TV news, so let me (Anthony) tell it like it is.

The front page of forecasthefacts.org has a list of who has been naughty and the statement:

In order to convince meteorologists to forecast the facts, we have to know where they stand. So we’re tracking meteorologists’ attitudes toward climate change across the country.

They also want you to “rat out” your local TV weathercaster/meteorologist:

Know what your meteorologist thinks? Drop us a line: tips@forecastthefacts.org

They have a “methodology” for who gets on the list:

Forecast the Facts defines a denier 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. Forecast the Facts also includes meteorologists who have suggested that extreme cold spells or snowstorms disprove climate science. We track the views of meteorologists through their on-air statements, blog posts, social media activity, public appearances, interviews, and interactions with viewers.

I love this retarded logic: Forecast the Facts also includes meteorologists who have suggested that extreme cold spells or snowstorms disprove climate science.  The inverse logic of course that any meteorologist who suggests that a heat wave or drought “proves climate science” gets a pass.

Idiots.

What these bought and paid for CEL activists (and apparently also the American Meteorological Society) don’t understand is the following:

1. Most TV weathercast segments run 2:30 to 3:30 in length. Because they are done mostly ad lib, they are often called upon by the newscast producer to cut time after the news segments typically run long after live shots or wordy live interviews…I’ve done this thousands of times. Climate? – hardly ever enough time to even mention.

2. TV stations are about ratings, and ratings are what determine revenue. They really don’t give a rat’s patootie about climate unless it helps make a buck. Note the statistics cited by CEL – the public isn’t believing it either. If someone tries to challenge the TV station on the issue, the management will most likely instruct their news department and meteorologists to not say anything either way to avoid aggravating the viewers. As topics go, climate isn’t an important topic except to a handful of viewers, they just want to know when it will rain and if there’s a weather bulletin that affects them. Politicizing a “cause” in a weather bulletin will piss off viewers like you can’t imagine. They’d be fools to touch it with a 40 foot pole.

3. Television news is a fickle beast, more so that just about any occupation. TV weathercasters and meteorologists are almost all on contract, some as short as a year, some as long as three years. Will anyone who wants to get their contract renewed take on an issue from a shadowy political hack in Berkeley that will piss off about half their viewers? Not likely. Most TV weathercasters and meteorologists I know stay neutral on the subject on-air for this reason.

4. The CEL and AMS cite the weathercaster survey, which was put together by George Mason University. See my report on it here. Amazingly, these geniuses think that what weathercasters and meteorologists answer in a written survey translates directly to what goes on-air every night, yeah right. See 1-3 above.

5. CEL is making a “list” of TV weathercasters and meteorologists who aren’t toeing the line as the paymasters of CEL want them to. They are labeled “deniers” and called out by name. I expect letters will go out to TV stations and maybe also to letters to the editor of local newspapers. This sort of labeling and pressure will be a fatal move. Why? Because it is actionable. You see as I said above, TV stations are about ratings, and ratings are what determine revenue. And when some organization starts smearing the news team, that becomes actionable, especially if it coincides with a drop in ratings. Monetary losses can be shown, and linked right back to CEL’s campaign to calling the local weathercaster a “denier”. Most TV stations are group owned, and these media groups all have legal departments specifically trained to deal with this sort of defamation.

Personally, I hope some TV station sues the living crap out of these bozos and whoever is paying them to be a “non-partisan” activist that apparently doesn’t know the first thing about television news.

But, it will probably fail long before that, as the money for this silliness dries up because it won’t be effective.

In the meantime, here’s what I’d like to ask the readers of WUWT to do:

1. Email this article to your local TV weathercaster/meteorologist. Let them know they are going to be the target of a paid political activist campaign out of Berkeley that has nothing to do with the American Meteorological Society.

2. If you are a member of the American Meteorological Society, let them know how tacky and misguided this would be to get into bed with such an organization. If they do, consider resigning, because who needs this sort of stuff from an organization you pay dues to? This is Teamsters style thinking and ask yourself – how does it help you get your next job or keep the one you have?

I find the National Weather Association to be far more sensible and practical.

3. If you see your local local TV weathercaster/meteorologist listed as a “denier” on the forecastthefacts.com website, let them know so they can alert their legal department that they are being defamed professionally. Your local TV station website also has contacts for the news director and general manager, contact them too.

4. If you see letters to the editor in your local newspapers attacking local TV weathercaster/meteorologists, back them up with facts, and write a letter of support.

Help keep your local TV weather report free of political activisim!

Thanks for your consideration – Anthony Watts

===============================================================

UPDATE: Forecastthefacts.org (operated by Citizen Engagement Lab) is a George Soros funded activist website. Here’s the proof (h/t to WUWT reader Jan):

Source:  http://www.soros.org/initiatives/usprograms/focus/democracy/grants/social/grantees/cel

Further, the director of CEL’s forecastthefacts.org  Daniel Souweine, his Facebook page has an interesting exercise in selective censorship.

He agrees that the Protect IP act is a bridge too far in censorship, but thinks it is OK to shut down free speech and open discourse on the public airwaves by targeting TV meteorologists and weathercasters who don’t toe the line on their view of climate.

What a guy!

UPDATE2: The AMS has no plans to pay any attention to these guys, nor the petition they submitted. This from the AMS blog, bold mine:

A Statement on Statements: Works in Progress

Today at its annual January meeting, the AMS Council will hear a report from a committee of expert members on the progress of a new revision to its Information Statement on Climate Change.

To say that the AMS’s current statement on this topic is “oft-cited,” particularly by advocates of strong action to mitigate and adapt to climate change, would be an understatement. It represented the best of climate science when it was adopted in February 2007, and includes such wording as:

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

increases in greenhouse gases are nearly certain to produce continued increases in temperature.

But despite the importance of keeping the public up to date on advancing climate science, don’t expect any major decisions in New Orleans. In fact, adoption of the updated Statement isn’t even on the Council’s agenda.

Actually, approval of the update would be forbidden by Council policy that requires a 30-day period to allow comments by members.

About these ads

212 thoughts on “Forecastthefacts.org – Political Activists Gagging Our TV Meteorologists on Climate Issues

  1. What a shameful witch hunting by this self proclaimed stassi.

    By the way, does any body know the result of the recent online survey of AMS members attitude to AGW?

  2. James Rucker: “James recently co-founded the Citizen Engagement Laboratory, an incubator for new online organizing efforts using the model of ColorOfChange, largely focused on empowering currently underserved identity and issue based communities. 

”

    And I notice that Daniel Souweine keeps turning up at things where Fenton Communications people turn up. Not surprising since this organization seems to be following the Fenton blueprint perfectly. The idea is to spin off a bunch of organizations which are actually, for all practical purposes one organization, but gives the appearance of several “grass roots” organizations. The word “Citizen” helps, too.

  3. Call them.for what they are…aren’t they trying to force people into consensual groups that follow somebody else’s opinion, never ever think for themselves, and actually cooperate to punish all dissent?

    Believe it or not, that IS the definition of Fascism.

  4. I think this is really cleaver! It is so over the top, so Orwellian, so Big Brotherish, it will repell TV Weatherman in the opposite direction and might even make some local reporter do a double take. My hat is off to the Big Oil guys who dreamed this up. ;-)

  5. As soon as the ad hominem “climate change denier” comes out, you know right away that you’re dealing with ideologues… I’m not sure they deserve the attention they are given here. It is best to ignore most groups of this type… It would be like giving PETA lots of publicity each time they come out with a new thought bubble.

  6. I’m all for “free speech”, but isn’t this about one step short of rounding people up to shoot them?

    Or, to put it another way, it’s like yelling “FIRE” on a crowded planet…

    On the other hand, any thinking person that has this pointed out might actually come to the realization that this whole thing has very little to do with “Science”. As has been pointed out here before, Meteorologists are probably far more hands-on when it comes to weather and climate than any “climate scientist”, the fact that the majority are “deniers” should say a LOT.

    We are being swamped by “progressives”, they light a ton of little fires and by the time we’ve stamped them out a whole new set are burning. I’d say Marx and Lenin would be proud.

  7. Dear Citizens’ Engagement Laboratory.
    You say that you are a distribution channel for key progressive messages. I ask you two questions: ” Do you think it is a democratic move to invite citizens to dob in their local meteorologists?” ” As a ‘progressive’, would you consider the practice of witch hunting to be ‘more’ or ‘less’ atavistic than affirming citizens’ constitutional entitlements to free speech?
    I look forward to your early response.
    Beth Cooper.

  8. In a way, this is very good news. It indicates that enough TV Meteorologists are speaking out on their doubts about global warming to have a significant influence on public opinion. So the activitists now feel the need to campaign to get us under control. On the other hand, it is very disturbing. Many TV Weathercasters will undoubtedly pull back to protect their positions and not create any problems for career advancement. This will ad stress to our lives, that is for sure. But, be good scientists, fellow TV Meteorologists. CO2 is not a pollutant and is there is no scientific proof that is now or ever will cause uncontrollable global warming.

  9. (Trying to be a pale imitation of the hero of the Yes Minister series Bernard Woolley) “Forecast the Facts” is an oxymoron — you can’t forecast facts.
    “Prediction is very difficult, especially if it’s about the future” Niels Bohr.

    ‘…The CEL web site lists 350.org as a “Partner,” which describes itself as: “building a global grassroots movement to solve the climate crisis…’. The use of imposing sounding titles (Citizen
    Engagement Laboratory), acronyms (CEL), buzzwords (350.org), catchphrases etc. are dead giveaways that they are the products of highly paid PR organisations.

  10. It’s really too bad that our local station is already in a contemptable state. In order to get decent LOCAL news I have to watch a station 40 miles away. The local one is actually that bad.

  11. Small typo, “Local” is printed twice! “3. If you see your local local TV weathercaster”…

    I agree, local weather forecasters should not be pressured this way, it’s wrong on all levels.

  12. I think they have mis-underestimated the mood of the the populace (as is so often the case with Warmists, who occupy group-think, ideology bubbles.)
    There was a time when being accused of being a ‘Denier’ might have been considered scary…things have changed since then.
    I’m thinking of having lapel buttons made…stating
    I’m a Denier…ask me why!

  13. It’s a well known fact that many meteorologists are “deniers”???

    It’s a well known fact that many meteorologists know that computer models are often wrong!

    It’s a well known fact that many meteorologists can see for themselves that none of the forecasts of warming from 2001 have been correct.

    On the positive side you could argue they got the 1980s and 1990s right. On the negative side, they were still going on about global cooling in the 1970s and gave categorical predictions on warming which singularly failed to materialise in the naughties. So … 2 out of four when the prediction is either right or wrong with around equal chances …

  14. I was struck by the completely disingenuous question “Do you believe there is solid evidence the earth is warming?”
    Whether you believe there is or isn’t is totally irrelevant as the dispute is about cause, not effect. Thus a lot of respondants may well answer yes to the above question, but if the question asked “Do you believe there is solid evidence that Co2 is causeing dangerous, runaway warming?” the answers would be entirely different.

  15. Another observation about their name, isn’t it sort of an oxymoron? To forecast is to predict, to calculate. And in a weather forecast, it is based upon a statistical probability. But the only ones that I know that predict facts are fortune tellers and palm readers. Maybe I can classify the web site Forecast the Facts in the same category as the charlatans in those fortune telling booths at the county fairs?

    They are good for a chuckle, but it’s dangerous to follow their advice.

  16. Ah, but it turns out that McCarthy was RIGHT. As opposed to the AGW-politicos who are WRONG.

    Kindly stop insulting someone who was, when everything was said and done, just another victim of hippies demonizing those who would dare to expose their evils. In fact, McCarthy could easily serve as a poster-child for this kind of tactic (AND as to just how effective they are) by the never-to-be-sufficiently-damned hippies.

    As a matter of fact, McCarthy was trying to take a stand against the SAME kind of people who are behind today’s political game of AGW.

  17. I seem to recall Mr A Hitler in his little tome, Mein Kampf, saying that “the mass of the people are more likely to believe a big lie rather than a small lie”. If you’re gonna tell porkies, tell whoppers, & do it bare faced too!
    “non-partisan organization that uses digital media and technology to amplify the voices of underrepresented constituencies. We seek to empower individuals to take collective action on the issues that concern them, promoting a world of greater equality and justice in the process.”

    Oh dear, “non-partisan”, “empower indivisuals”, & “collective”, the dead giveaways imho! Rather reminds me of the fairly old joke about Pime Minister Blair, you know that multi-millionaire socialist who told us all that “people were’nt putting enough away for their old age” & santcioned annual billion pound raids on private pension schemes, & who wants to impose repression of the rest of us, “Hi, I’m Tony, I never tell lies, whoops there’s another one!” :-)

  18. Here in Australia all weather reporters I hear read from the IPCC/BoM/CSIRO page. It is rare to hear a whisper counter to that. For example although I am in Canberra – I get the Sydney TV weather – and the guys are almost hysterical that Sydney is having an average January – keep on talking about heat to come. It is sad. I gather that in the US there is still more independent thought.

  19. These alarmists are certainly well organized. However, doesn’t there come a point when increasingly frenetic activity like this to target weathermen who are, by training and background, bound to be on the sceptical side, become counter-productive?

    Organization and entryism has always been a strength of the Left but sometimes these cadres are a little too clever for their own good. There is a limit to the power of activists to mobilize or change opinion in the face of the evidence of the senses. I think that limit has been reached already, hence the ever more desperate struggle against popular opinion. I think that this campaign and the one to get Climate Change Denialism treated like the teaching of Creationism in Schools will have effects opposite to those intended. The “tipping point” in public opinion against climate alarmism has already been passed.

  20. Face it. The climate change religion is here for good. It reached critical mass of fervent and activist believers years ago and it is not going to fade away.

    There are so many indoctrinated schoolteachers and schoolchildren, so many people whose living depends on its continued existence, so many of the rich and powerful who profit from it – and so many fervent believers that it’s hard to see it being forgotten.

    In two thousand years from now, when deniers point to that fact that the world has not warmed significantly, they will be told that that just confirms the effectiveness of the measures taken.

    *If* the climate change religion does ever come to an end, it will because of having been laughed at and ridiculed: http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Global_Warming

  21. Nice call to arms article by Watts and Lewis.
    One possible weakness is the TV stations sueing FtF as an oversight by FtF. The money for the AGW religion is coming from international bankers, and I reckon its quite easy for international banker funded groups to appeal for unlimited law court funding, which overwhelms what ever budgets the TV stations have for their sueing department.

  22. Im predicting this is so stupid that they will quickly withdraw or be asked to withdraw it by the AGW team

  23. “It’s well known that large numbers of meteorologists are climate change deniers.
    I’m confused, we were given to understand ALLscientists agreed the science was settled.

  24. spangled drongo says:
    January 23, 2012 at 1:39 am
    “It was always about money, ideology and power, Never climate or science:”

    Wow! Nature has Fred Singer and Arno Arrak in the comments and doesn’t censor them! What’s happening?

  25. Warwick Hughes says:
    January 23, 2012 at 2:00 am

    Here in Australia all weather reporters I hear read from the IPCC/BoM/CSIRO page. It is rare to hear a whisper counter to that. For example although I am in Canberra – I get the Sydney TV weather – and the guys are almost hysterical that Sydney is having an average January – keep on talking about heat to come. It is sad. I gather that in the US there is still more independent thought.

    Average? Not in my dimension. The historical average high is 26C. We may reached that a handful of days in January, and rarely topped it. Most of January is like December was, 21C to 24C maximums.

    Time to head for the tropics before the glaciers move in. I am not looking forward to winter down here!

  26. If that menagerie of pressure groups is “non-partisan”, I wonder what leftist organizations they would acknowledge are partisan. They’d probably choke trying to name even one!

  27. I visited the site and voted “No” in the poll on Global Warming. That brought up the Vimeo presentation, which says “You are part of a growing number of people who doubt global warming”. The respective figures (wherever they are derived from), are 2006 – 77% Yes / 23% No and by 2011 – 63% Yes / 37% No. This appears to be an admission that their message is failing. I downloaded the clip, and I took screenshots, just in case!

    I used some of the tools included with Flagfox and, like you, got nothing of use with Whois. “Geotool” gives their server as “Slicehost LLC ” in Saint Louis, Missouri.
    “Same IP” lists:
    presente.org
    turnofffox.org
    trail2010.org
    gettingcovered.org
    videothevote.org
    occupyourhomes.org
    engagementlab.org
    basta287g.com
    “Domain Tools Traceroute” gave 9 hops (from the UK) ending at engagementlab.org

  28. Is that really legal in the US? I mean to track peoples opinion and make public databases of it?
    In Sweden I doubt it would survive a trial.

  29. “…Forecast the Facts defines a denier 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…”

    If you fail one criteria do you fail them all?

    As a interested observer of geological processes I believe in climate change, I believe it has had profounds impacts on our world but I’m not sure of the extent of human impact on these processes although I do not deny that humans could influence the climate – therefore am I a denier?

    Cheers

    Michael

  30. I visited the site and voted “No” in the poll on Global Warming. That brought up the Vimeo presentation, which says “You are part of a growing number of people who doubt global warming”. The respective figures (wherever they are derived from), are 2006 – 77% Yes / 23% No and by 2011 – 63% Yes / 37% No. This appears to be an admission that their message is failing. I downloaded the clip, and I took screenshots, just in case!

    I used some of the tools included with Flagfox and, like you, got nothing of use with Whois. “Geotool” gives their server as “Slicehost LLC ” in Saint Louis, Missouri.
    “Same IP” lists:
    presente dot org
    turnofffox dot org
    trail2010 dot org
    gettingcovered dot org
    videothevote dot org
    occupyourhomes dot org
    engagementlab dot org
    basta287g dot com
    “Domain Tools Traceroute” gave 9 hops (from the UK) ending at engagementlab dot org

    Mod Note; 2 previous attempts to post this failed, I’ve now altered the URL’s to hopefully avoid the spam filter.

    [yep, worked this time - sorry I've been a tad rushed so haven't check SPAM for past hour - but you have 2 there I will delete ~ac]

  31. The CEL seems to be located on a building called ‘The David Brower Centre’

    http://www.browercenter.org/tenants/working

    This centre boasts

    ‘operable windows’
    and
    ‘non-toxic carpet’

    which supposedly lead to ‘reduced absenteeism and greater efficiency’.

    I cannot take it, or its inhabitants seriously.

    Sent from my home office in UK, also with ‘operable windows’ and carpet that hasn’t poisoned anything yet.

    Aren’t eco-loonies hilarious?

  32. Anthony, thank you for presenting the facts.

    It is truely alarming that the issues you reveal relating to ‘global warming’ are likely happening in other areas in our society. Very scary indeed.

  33. If they had a position for reporting of the ‘Believers’ i would report the clown on one of my local stations.

  34. Anthony stated:
    Personally, I hope some TV station sues the living crap out of these bozos
    That might sound like something we’d all like to see, but I don’t know if it is really actionable. If the meteorologist publicly states he/she doesn’t believe in AGW, and the web site lists the names and stations they are on, I’m not sure where that goes afoul of the law.. As long as they don’t do something stupid like providing their home address and directing them to harass the meteorologist, they may be within the law… That’s my non-lawyer opinion..
    All I can hope for is that they just keep making fools of themselves and we keep educating the public of their inconsistencies and the outright fraud in their hype.

    I’m not a lawyer, but I’ll play one on the internet…

  35. Forecast the Facts defines a denier 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.

    But if they refute doesn’t that mean… oh nevermind

  36. “It’s essential that the AMS Council resist pressure from these deniers and pass the strong statement currently under consideration.”

    Sigh. Another case of warmist projection. I think we all know which of this debate is actually applying considerable pressure with considerable funding and resources while the other holds a quiet vigil. I guess all the tv specials and dedicated news segments arent enough, they need that two minutes a day as well to push their message. It’s a pity they can’t afford their own advertising campaign…

  37. The AMS may get a bit uncomfortable discussing this because there’s a pretty solid male/female divide on the issue. Weathergirls are more prone to get all Commie’d up, more prone to spend on-air time howling about polar bears and glaciers. Weatherdudes are more likely to observe Nature and use logic.

  38. “It’s well known that large numbers of meteorologists are climate change deniers.”

    Well, quite. You’d expect that meteorologists would have an above-average understanding of how weather systems work, surely? It’s their specialism! Plus, when you tune in to a media weather forecast, you generally want to know whether or not it’s going to rain tomorrow, not to hear some political tirade about how you’ll burn the earth up in many years’ time with your evil evil lifestyle. Even the Met Office forecasts on our own dear “objective, impartial (ho ho) BBC” are only about the next few days, max.

    The quantity, if not the quality, of alarmism is truly astonishing, makes “Whack-a-Mole” look like childsplay.

  39. Kohl P says:
    January 22, 2012 at 11:43 pm
    “This really is like McCarthyism isn’t it?”

    Much more like Stalinism.

  40. “In other cases, they cover … winter storms, without ever mentioning the scientific consensus that climate change is making these events more likely and more intense.”
    =============

    Keep Winter Cool

    winter is short enough already!

    http://www.keepwintercool.org/

    And winter is short enough already!

    http://www.keepwintercool.com.au/about.htm

    The good news is that each of us can make a difference.
    Play “Keep Winter Scary” – or the meterologist gets it!

    http://www.keepwintercool.com.au/game/KWC.php

    How to forecast the fear:
    =========
    BBC NEWS
    Children die in harsh Peru winter
    July 12, 2009
    By Dan Collyns, BBC News, Lima

    Almost 250 children under the age of five have died in a wave of intensely cold weather in Peru.
    Children die from pneumonia and other respiratory infections every year during the winter months particularly in Peru’s southern Andes. But this year freezing temperatures arrived almost three months earlier than usual.
    Experts blame climate change for the early arrival of intense cold which began in March. Winter in the region does not usually begin until June.
    The extreme cold, which has brought snow, hail, freezing temperatures and strong winds, has killed more children than recorded annually for the past four years. A total of 246 under the age of five have died so far, only half way through the winter months.
    ===========

    And winter is short enough already.

  41. “It’s well known that large numbers of meteorologists are climate change deniers…..”

    The irony is just exquisite …….

  42. I always find it amazing that the majority of climate scientists whose job depends on them being right do not believe in AGW but the majority of climate scientists whose job depend on getting a grant do. If a meteorologist is not right, he or she will not employed much longer.

    There is a reason why the well-organized AGW machine is going after these people: Because well-respected meteorologists have the power, knowledge, and influence to make people not believe in AGW.

  43. Anthony stated:
    Personally, I hope some TV station sues the living crap out of these bozos
    Eventhough I would like to see these ‘chicken littles’ called on the carpet for their actions, I don’t know if it is actionable in a court. If the meteorologist publicly states that he/she does not believe in AGW, and if this web site only posts the meteorologist and the station they work for, I don’t know if that run afoul of the law. As long as they don’t publish their home addresses and don’t instruct their followers to do something stupid, then I’m not sure if there is a legal issue. But that is my non-lawyer opinion… (I’m not a lawyer, but I’ll play one on the internet..)

    What I hope to see is that they keep spouting off with their rhetoric and stupid tactics so much that the general public start to see them for what they really are. And I hope to keep up the fight to educate them on the lies and distortions the AGW proponents keep bringing to the table.. I want to make their place at the table as uncomfortable as possible..

    Maybe send them to the little kids’ table……

  44. One thing I am confident about is that the public are not completely stupid. When they find out that all this pressure is being applied to weather forecasters they will not like it, they will think to themselves – why is this necessary if the evidence is so overwhemingly in favour of AGW? What this group are highlighting is something that the public are probably unaware of – that weather forecasters are AGW sceptics, and that should make them think – why?

  45. I can hear the forecasts now for those areas just hit by massive snowstorms:

    “Well, we’ve seen 12 inches of snow so far, but don’t worry – by the year 2100, we won’t have to worry about it”.

  46. Non-experts telling experts how to do their job, can’t end badly now can it? What about the news stories as well, should they be censored by the standards set out by this fringe group?

  47. First they came for the communists,
    and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a communist.

    Then they came for the trade unionists,
    and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a trade unionist.

    Then they came for the Jews,
    and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Jew.

    Then they came for the Catholics,
    and I didn’t speak out because I was Protestant.

    Then they came for me
    and there was no one left to speak out for me.

    South African weather bill creates a storm of controversy
    Proposed law would make unauthorized storm predictions punishable by heavy fines and 10 years in jail.

    http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/climate-weather/stories/south-african-weather-bill-creates-a-storm-of-controversy

  48. From Wikipedia definition of fascism

    “To achieve its goals, fascists purge forces, ideas, people, and systems deemed to be the cause of decadence and degeneration.”

    Seems pretty spot on to what these folks are trying to do, purge ideas that they consider to be detrimental to ‘goals that benefit society and the proletariat’ (Mussolini declared Italy to be a proletarian nation). They are anti-intellectual at their core. Yep, they’re fascists alright.

  49. “Forecast the Facts defines a denier as anyone who expressly refutes the overwhelming scientific consensus about climate change …”

    Emphasis added. For a change, the AGW crew told the truth.

  50. Sorry for beside the topic, but let me say some basic words to the matter of global climate.

    There are facts from scientific methods about global variations of local mean temperatures, and these facts are not objects of politics. From these facts it is known that since some centuries the variations of the local mean temperatures have increased, after the variations of the local mean temperatures have decreases since some centuries after the 10th century. One area of such scientific research is the variation of the glacier level over time and the tree rings from the trees under the glacier. From these data temperature proxies can be calibrated, and Prof. G. Patzelt has published his measurements from more than 10 centuries back in time.

    These facts proof variations on the scale of millennia, and each argued time interval of an increasing global temperature avoiding the history of temperature variations has no scientific value in respect to the understanding the global climate variations in general. From this, questions from laymen about ‘global warming’ (for the argued time interval), should be answered with the oscillating global temperatures on the scale of millennia.

    I think laymen will understand by simple logic that broken trees under glacier higher than the present timber line must have higher temperature/climate conditions than today or in the last decades.

    The term ‘Global warming’ is not a term of climate science, and it says nothing about the (long) global history of local temperature variations. But nevertheless the term is used in the climate war.

    The most unscientific confusion in this matter is the mix up of that unscientific term ‘Global warming’ with the real increasing level of CO2 in the atmosphere, and it is obvious that this confusion is created from people who’s point of view is limited to a time interval of increasing temperatures; a view on the variations of the global temperatures for the last millennia and its warm times alike today tells us that there were real warm times without an increasing CO2 level.
    This means that there is no reason to argue scientifically on a connection of increasing CO2 and ‘Global warming’.

    But this means also that there are good arguments to reject this declaration of a connection and good arguments to accept variations and increasing global temperatures since ~4 centuries.

    The most perverse idea is to tell laymens and/or children in schools that because the increasing level of CO2 in the atmosphere comes from human burning processes like cars and will probably increase further in the future ‘dramatically’, we must stop this to prevent catastrophes, hunger, floods or ‘global warming’.
    Parmenides has said, ‘argue on that what IS, not on what is NOT. Instead repeating, ad nauseam, there is NO causality in this idea, it is better to argue all the facts like the glacier variations or that the temperature on
    Neptune and/or Uranus is increasing with the same function as on Earth in the last half century, and there are probably no cars on Neptune.

    I think it is not a problem to argue politics in general, but the arguments have to be valid with respect to the science of logic.

    Thank you.

    V.

    V,

  51. I went to the Fornicate the Facts website.

    They have actual quotes from various “denier” TV weathercasters. Really scandalous stuff:

    “Climate is changing, always has and most likely always will…” – denier Gary England of KWTV-TV Oklahoma City, OK

    “”The truth as I see it and many others, is that the Earth’s climate has always been changing, in my life time, way before it, and way beyond it, it will always be changing. ” – denier Bob Breck of WVUE-TV New Orleans, LA

    OMG, these Big Oil-funded deniers and their wild crazy anti-science rants. Thank you Fornicate the Facts

  52. “Forecast the Facts defines a denier as anyone who expressly refutes the overwhelming scientific consensus about climate change”. Consensus ‘refuted’? – job done! Somebody buy these guys a dictionary.

  53. Sorry for beside the topic, but let me say some basic words to the matter of global climate.

    There are facts from scientific methods about global variations of local mean temperatures, and these facts are not objects of politics. From these facts it is known that since some centuries the variations of the local mean temperatures have increased, after the variations of the local mean temperatures have decreases since some centuries after the 10th century. One area of such scientific research is the variation of the glacier level over time and the tree rings from the trees under the glacier. From these data temperature proxies can be calibrated, and Prof. G. Patzelt has published his measurements from more than 10 centuries back in time.

    These facts proof variations on the scale of millennia, and each argued time interval of an increasing global temperature avoiding the history of temperature variations has no scientific value in respect to the understanding the global climate variations in general. From this, questions from laymen about ‘global warming’ (for the argued time interval), should be answered with the oscillating global temperatures on the scale of millennia.

    I think laymen will understand by simple logic that broken trees under glacier higher than the present timber line must have higher temperature/climate conditions the today or in the last decades.

    The term ‘Global warming’ is not a term of climate science, and it says nothing about the (long) global history of local temperature variations. But nevertheless the term is used in the climate war.

    The most unscientific confusion in this matter is the mix up of that unscientific term ‘Global warming’ with the real increasing level of CO2 in the atmosphere, and it is obvious that this confusion is created from people who’s point of view is limited to an time interval of increasing temperatures; a view on the variations of the global temperatures for the last millennia and its warm times alike today tell us that there were real warm times without an increasing CO2 level.
    This means that there is no reason to argue scientifically on a connection of increasing CO2 and ‘Global warming’.

    But this means also that there are good arguments to reject this declaration of a connection and good arguments to accept variations and increasing global temperatures since ~4 centuries.

    The most perverse idea is to tell laymens and/or children in schools that because the increasing level of CO2 in the atmosphere comes from human burning processes like cars and will probably increase further in the future ‘dramatically’, we must stop this to prevent catastrophes, hunger, floods or ‘global warming’.

    Parmenides has said, ‘argue on that what IS, not on that what NOT is. Instead repeating there is NO causality in this idea, it is better to argue all the facts like the glacier variations or that the temperature on Neptune and/or Uranus is increasing with the same function as on Earth in the last half century, and there are probably no cars.

    I think it is not a problem to argue politics in general, but the arguments have to be valid with the respect to the science of logic.

    Thank you.

    V.

  54. Anthony, Might it be possible to turn this thing upside down, and start an Honor Roll on a web site somewhere. A list of those honorable weather forecasters who have dared to defy the Dark Side of the Force, and present the truth that CAGW is just plain wrong. If this could be done successfully, we might be able to persuade the TV weather people to make an effort to get their names ON the List. Presumably we have 47 names to start up with. Just a thought.

  55. Wait. . . A large amount of meteorologists are ‘Deniers’? What happened to “Its settled” and there is “Agreement among practically all scientists”?

  56. Hmm, I hadn’t seen http://www.yougetsignal.com/tools/web-sites-on-web-server/?remoteAddress=wermenh.com (URL edited to check wermenh.com). My site is at a web hosting ISP and “my” IP address is shared with “over 1000 domains hosted on the same web server as wermenh.com (38.113.1.97).” They “helpfully” note that “It appears that the web server located at 38.113.1.97 may be hosting one or more web sites with explicit content,” and list them in red so I can find them easily.

    This list will likely force my comment into the spam bin, but sites include astrologyofgreatsex.com, essexcountytrack.bizland.com, heacockliteraryagency.com, peacockpatterns.com, and (did the owner pick this name on purpose?) starbucksexperience.net. They missed eroticbakeryusa.com. Interesting pair: animalrightsfoundation.com and meatgoatproducers.com.

    At least my ISP (bizland.com) is only in it for the money.

  57. I’d like you to contact these kids’ parents and tell them to stop libelling weathermen. How would they like it if people started rating them at their job based on what they believe about God?

  58. Teh changed message should read that the climate has been changing in a good way and, God willing and fossil fuel burning, it will continue to become more productive for agriculture with longer growing seasons and an atmosphere richer in CO2 that plants desperately need. They should be clear that the earth is in an ice age and if we don’t do anything to stop it then glaciers a mile thick will once again cover everything north of Kansas. Moreover, they should say, it may be a futile effort but fossil fuel burning is our best hope of stopping the ice from coming back and destroying civilization as we know it.

  59. Jer0me says:
    January 23, 2012 at 2:37 am

    Warwick Hughes says:
    January 23, 2012 at 2:00 am

    It is not just Sydney. Here in Meekatharra We have had just 1 (one) 40 degree day this January. so far.

    http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/dwo/201201/html/IDCJDW6083.201201.shtml

    I had to go back to 1955 to find a comparable January here.

    http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_nccObsCode=122&p_display_type=dailyDataFile&p_startYear=1955&p_c=-16799448&p_stn_num=7045

    This follows on from a December with just 6 x 40 degree days which dec 1954 beats easily.

    Where was the solar cycle in 1954-5?

  60. Wonderful deconstruction. We need much more work along these lines to inform the debate. I often use a few clicks to demonstrate the connections between various rent-seeking schemes in Tennessee; D. Bottoroff until recently Chairman of TVA, D. Bottoroff Founder of Council Ventures VC Capital fund, Council Ventures investments in start-up Solar companies, to TVA 20 year 22cent kwh contracts to the same solar companies. Rent-seeking is so common here a few miles from Al Gores ancesteral home that they make no real attempt to hide it.

  61. Is that really legal in the US? I mean to track peoples opinion and make public databases of it?

    Sure, why not? There’s nothing inherently illegal about keeping tabs on publicly available information. If you don’t want your opinion known or stored in somebody’s database, don’t make it public.

    If something happens to anybody on such a list, and thinly veiled threats can be inferred from inclusion on such a list, however, don’t be surprised if those are the first people questioned in any investigation. Certainly it is something that can be used as evidence in any potential criminal/civil actions (the latter much more likely as the burden of proof is considerably lower in civil litigation).

    Ultimately, the fact that such a list is itself publicly acknowleged makes it that much less likely that they can actually do anything with it that would result in a otherwise illegal (or actionable) activity. Many in here seem to think such labels are actually a badge of honor anymore: “yeah, right, I’m a scientist, I don’t buy into consensus on anything as part of my job description.”

    Mark

  62. Yep, mods – my previous comment is so buried in the spam list WordPress may never let it out. :-)

    The only TV mets I know who make a big deal about climate change on air are Sam Champion at Good Morning America, and John Coleman at KUSI. OTOH, I’ve gotten a thank you note from one local Met for my work to support getting New Hampshire out of RGGI and testified at the NH state house with another from Connecticut.

    CEL is probably aware of both.

    At least this isn’t an “inside job” like http://wattsupwiththat.com/2007/01/22/weather-channel-issues-ultimate-professional-insult/ was.

  63. I had the thought recently that the term climate change denier works in both directions. Many of the AGW alarmists tend to deny climate change that happen before 1900, i.e,e MWP.

  64. That so called progressives are pushing this sort of blatant censorship on many topics speaks volumes about how ironic their self-proclaimed enlightenment truly is.

  65. 4. The CEL and AMS cite the weathercaster survey, which was put together by George Mason University. See my report on it here. Amazingly, these geniuses think that what weathercasters and meteorologists answer in a written survey translates directly to what goes on-air every night, yeah right. See 1-3 above.

    Sure, but this witch hunt isn’t about suppressing what those weathercasters say, it’s about punishing them for what they believe.

  66. One final note – the section “In their own words” has some really good comments, several which deserve to be incorporated in elevator speeches. I tried to see if I could get them all readily, but they’re too deeply hidden in Javascript. Oh wait a minute! I copied one off the page and may have gotten them all:

    “If manmade global warming is not junk science, it is surely bad science. Thanks to climategate, we now know..there has been no statistically significant global warming since 1995.”

    Kevin Williams of WHEC-TV Rochester, NY

    source: Tea Party Rally 04/15/2010

    “The Earth is not warming, sea levels are not rising, global ice masses are actually starting to grow.”

    Kevin Williams of WHEC-TV Rochester, NY

    source: Tea Party Rally 04/15/2010

    “This cry that ‘We’re all going to die’ is an overreaction and just not good science. I don’t think I personally know any meteorologists — here in Cleveland or anywhere else I’ve worked — who agree with the hype over human-induced warming.”

    Andre Bernier of WJW-TV Cleveland, OH

    source: Cleveland Plain-Dealer 12/02/2008

    “My school presentations now center on global warming and climate change. In them, I first state a fact–that CO2 is NOT a pollutant, but a life-giving, naturally occurring element in our atmosphere”

    Karl Bohnak of WLUC-TV Marquette, MI

    source: That’s What Karl Says 05/05/2009

    “It is pretty widely accepted that the earth has been cooling for the past several years…”

    Dave Dahl of KSTP-TV Minneapolis, MN

    source: Minnesota Post 09/26/2008

    “So, does carbon dioxide drive the climate? The answer is no!”

    David Paul of KLFY-TV Lafayette, LA

    source: KLFY 07/08/2009

    “What I do believe is we have been in a warming cycle as the history of our Planet shows has happened many times before. What I don’t agree to is that man (CO2) is the driver of climate change and we must do something”

    Bob Breck of WVUE-TV New Orleans, LA

    source: BobBreck.com 09/15/2011

    “Climate records also show that long before industrialization, the Vikings had settled in Greenland because it was warm enough. I think the jury is still out on this.”

    Jon Loufman of WOIO-TV Cleveland, OH

    source: Cleveland Plain-Dealer 12/02/2008

    “Natural climate cycles were going on well before people were around or could have even dreamed of having any effect. ”

    Bill Meck of WLEX-TV Lexington, KY

    source: Bill’s Weather Blog 11/20/2009

    “Next time you hear someone tell you Co2 is a pollutant, please correct them. Not only is it not a pollutant, it is what makes green plants green. It is a critical component of life”

    Kevin Williams of WHEC-TV Rochester, NY

    source: Tea Party Rally 04/15/2010

    “The Earth’s climate has changed since the day God put it here. We’ve had these cyclical changes, and I believe most of this is purely natural.”

    James Spann of WBMA-TV Birmingham, AL

    source: Glenn Beck Show 01/22/2007

    “I wouldn’t pay a dime to see [An Inconvenient Truth] for many reasons..[Al Gore] is a left-wing nut. And he does things for other agendas.”

    Karl Spring of KMSP Minneapolis, MN

    source: BusinessNorth 10/16/2007

    “The climate is always changing and has been since day one” and will continue to do so.We have been in a warmer-than-average pattern for the last 10 to 15 years. That cycle is now just starting to flip to a colder-than-average pattern that will last 15 to 20 years, although there will be some blips in this pattern.”

    Dave Murray of KTVI-TV St. Louis, MO

    source: St. Louis Journalism Review 03/01/2009

    “For years as a broadcast meteorologist, I kept silent about the issue of “global warming.” Declaring skepticism labeled you (and still does) as an anti-environmentalist. After former VP Gore’s movie hit the big screen, I could remain silent no more. “An Inconvenient Truth” was filled with so many gross distortions and outright scientific misrepresentations; I felt it was my obligation to speak out.”

    Karl Bohnak of WLUC-TV Marquette, MI

    source: That’s What Karl Says 05/05/2009

    “The forecasts that the alarmists have made are obviously not coming true. We’re wasting so much time and so much money on this issue.”

    Tim Kelley of New England Cable News Boston, MA

    source: Sharon Advocate 03/30/2010

  67. I don’t know whether it is due to intimidation or lack of resources or something else, but I’ve noticed that almost all the local TV weather reports I’ve seen in my travels have stopped or at least pared down showing historical information: conditions this day last year, record high/low temperatures, trends over the past decade, etc. It used to be the most interesting part of the segment, for me.

    Another thing: look at some old seed catalogs, and compare the “last frost date” lines on the map against current ones. It’s quite enlightening.

  68. Yes, there’s some seriously bad dudes trying to do real and significant damage to the our lives and economies. We need to know who is financing this and we need to understand it’s the tip of the iceberg.

  69. Up here there is specific legal texts that may fuel interesting legal cases:

    “2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
    (a) freedom of conscience and religion;
    (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
    (c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
    (d) freedom of association. ”

    A little theoric these days but not completly forgotten…

  70. This quote is a laugher:

    “..Forecast the Facts defines a denier as anyone who expressly refutes the overwhelming scientific consensus about climate change: …”

    They don’t know the difference between “refutes” and “rebuts”.
    As any chess player knows from sad experience, “refutes” means to prove wrong, When my novel chess opening is refuted, I get crushed.. I’t proven that my new opening sucks. Rebuts, on the other hand , means to offer counter arguments. In that case, the issue can be “up in the air”, undecided with arguments on both sides.

  71. I kind of enjoy watching this kind of 3 ring circus. :) Hilarious, actually. They seem to follow the old rhyme:

    “If in danger or in doubt,
    Run in circles
    Scream and shout.”

  72. I’ve never seen the local Meteorologists talk about this during the newscast. Interestingly, there was a program on the local talkradio station with meteorologist from all 4 television networks about Climate Change. They pretty thoroughly demolished the claims of the AGW camp, using just the science. It was really interesting to listen to someone who has been forecasting the weather for 50 years in my town talk about how the models actually work, or don’t as is more often the case.

  73. The Global Warming/Climate Change Liars will do anything to perpetrate their political agenda. If that means intimidating people or organizations, smearing people, getting them fired, ruining reputations, subverting and destroying democracy, then so-be-it. Make no mistake about it, this has nothing to do with climate science – it’s an ideology that believes they know best and they will do anything they think is necessary to impose their beliefs on the nonbelievers. I would not rule out violence and other means of physical intimidation. You aren’t dealing with rational people. They can justify any abhorrent behavior for the cause in their sick, twisted, corrupt minds. I am very worried about our democracy and our civilization and where the Climate Liars are taking it.

  74. Does this mean that they want to make sure that weather presenters inform the public about how the US has cooled these past 15 or so years?

  75. There is an understandable typo right above the screen shot for the Brower institute where you identify it as the “Browner” institute. The two names are easily confused because of the similarity of their goals. David Brower led the Sierra Club and turned it from a mountaineering club to the first anti-development organization. He then founded Friends of the Earth and Earth Island Institute when the Sierra Club threw him out. He is Nazi all the way down, including advocating population control.

    Carol Browner went from accruing power with the EPA during the entire Clinton administration to having a private extortion shop during the Bush years to being the Energy and Climate Czar under Obama.

  76. From their web-site, apparently even stating facts makes you a denier as they have this in their scrolling view:

    “Our crops and our forests are thriving because of carbon dioxide.”
    John Coleman of KUSI-TV San Diego, CA

    Really have to wonder why they feel the need to do this, if the evidence for AGW is that impressive why go on a witch hunt?

  77. Since their Computer Models do not match with Natures natural cycles, these science challenged alarmists have concluded that their behavior is what is know in science as ” Climate forcing”.

  78. Michael down under,

    Yup, you’re a denier all right…it’s the part about not believing we ARE the cause of climate change…Ya gotta swallow the whole fish my friend, ya can’t pick and choose the best parts and discard the rest. Here, have a drink of Koolaid (R).

    Laying aside the scarcasm for a moment, it looks to me like your theory puts you right in the middle of skeptical climate thought at the moment.

    Keep up the thinking mate! The mind is intended to be used – or lost.

    Mike in Pueblo, Colorado (beautiful sunny day today!)

  79. Here is the AMS statement on climate change:

    http://ametsoc.org/policy/2007climatechange.html

    Final remarks

    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. Focusing on the next 30 years, convergence among emission scenarios and model results suggest strongly that increasing air temperatures will reduce snowpack, shift snowmelt timing, reduce crop production and rangeland fertility, and cause continued melting of the ice caps and sea level rise. Important goals for future work include the need to understand the relation of climate at the state and regional level to the patterns of global climate and to reverse the decline in observational networks that are so critical to accurate climate monitoring and prediction.

    Policy choices in the near future will determine the extent of the impacts of climate change. Policy decisions are seldom made in a context of absolute certainty. Some continued climate change is inevitable, and the policy debate should also consider the best ways to adapt to climate change. Prudence dictates extreme care in managing our relationship with the only planet known to be capable of sustaining human life.
    _______________________________

    I do not agree with the technical conclusions of the above AMS statement, except for its closure, as follows:

    [This statement is considered in force until February 2012 unless superseded by a new statement issued by the AMS Council before this date.]

  80. Daniel Souweine said: “It’s well known that large numbers of meteorologists are climate change deniers…………………”
    So, who is agreeing with the warmists? The experts, that is, the meteorologists do not accept AGW as a doctrine. The experts are not agreeing. Should not the AGW cabal start having a look at their science? Does it not pass through their head that they might just be wrong, and the meterologists could be right after all?
    But no. The AGWers are so damned stupid, hubristic, that such thoughts do not even come to their minds. It’s the tyrant’s syndrom. I am always right, the people love me, and the few who hate me are the enemy of the people and must be destroyed.

    They deny the AGW religion. They are skeptics, AGW-atheists, non-beilievers, deniers, therefore they must be forced into the trains and taken to the labour camps where they will be re-educated and……………………………..

    in a decade or two, the AGWers will hang their head in shame for the science tyranny that they are practicing.

  81. “Forecast the facts“? Bludgeon “deniers” into the “consensus”? Well, that certainly is Thought Control Climate “Science”!

  82. I believe thattwhat the US needs is a political leader who would make a clean sweep of all this scientific tyranny and bring back some sense into the scientific mainstream. Then let the AGW die a natural death. It’s presently on life support.

  83. Toeing the line means visibly pulling on it and proving your loyalty on a regular basis.
    They’re watching and better see AGW faith on display.

  84. I remember when it was “News, Weather, and Sports”. Now, it’s supposed to be “News, Climate, and Sports”????

    Most of us watch the weather forecast to see what the WEATHER will be in the short term. I have a reasonable expectation that I will get a reasonably accurate weather forecast, and nothing else, certainly not a commentary on climate, certainly not a thesis on climate.

    I remember too when The Weather Channel was the channel you turned on to get…the weather. Forecast.

    Climate science is having a hard enough time just getting right the….
    Hindcast.

  85. … and just to expand on “how to control the local weather”… Siegenthaler Public Relations clients Natural Resources Defense Council and WTVF Channel 5 click to John Siegenthaler Publisher Emiritus Tennessean newspaper click to Courtney Siegenthaler (daughter) Southern Clean Air Alliance click to John Siegenthaler/RFK jr click to Al Gore… city reporter Tennessean post-military service. The Climate-Industrial Complex in microcosm. Elegant.

  86. SunderlandSteve says:
    January 23, 2012 at 1:28 am

    I was struck by the completely disingenuous question “Do you believe there is solid evidence the earth is warming?”

    Yes, but no, but, yes, but …

    This is the meme. This is what allows them to claim “Thousands of papers by thousands of scientists” giving a consensus, settled science, etc. etc.

    Those papers (mostly) produce evidence that the world is warming (or was until sometime recently) and this is all she wrote.

    Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because ….

    Meanwhile we twiddle our thumbs waiting for a solitary skit of evidence that the monkeys did it by burning stuff. It may be some time. I hope it doesn’t take as long as my cheques from big oil are taking.

  87. How soon until our local stations are occupied in order to get the “deniers” off the air?

    ~More Soylent Green!

  88. It is the duty of all True Believers to ferret out Heretics in our midst. Sniffing around a suspected Heretic for clues is a waste of valuable time. I have it on good authority that Heretics float like corks. All the TV weather people should be rounded up and thrown into the bay. Those who pop to the surface are the Heretics. Problem solved.

  89. Just take the fifth Mr Watts, just take the fifth :)

    I know you have too much in the guts and determination department to do that but at what point do members of society have to start doing that to protect their incomes and families? Scientists have been a target for a while and now the local weatherman? Next they will ferret out the teachers who dare to explain the scientific method.

  90. >>Face it. The climate change religion is here for good. It reached critical mass of fervent and activist believers years ago and it is not going to fade away.

    I completely disagree. AGW will ultimately go the way of the Piltdown Man, Phrenology and Eugenics. What you are observing now are the last gasp efforts of the committed faithful and their monied supporters to turn around what has become a landslide of disbelief on the part of the general public whose instincts (and a brief examination of the facts) have convinced them that this is a scam.

  91. Some here were unfairly comparing “Forcastthefacts.com” tactics to “McCarthyism”.
    McCarthy was taking a stand against employing communists in the State Department and the Army. Many erroneously confuse the HUAC hearings on communists in Hollywood with McCarthy. McCarthy was a senator and had nothing to do with the House UnAmerican Activities Committee. Thanks to the “Verona” files, we now know that McCarthy was right.

    “Forecastthe facts.com” , unlike Joe McCarthy, does not want to subpoena supposed traitors working for the govt and have them testify. They want to suppress all testimony whatsoever.

  92. I smell a huge class action lawsuit against both CEL, and AMS, and not to mention several other organizations and individiduals. Professional defamation is serious. I sure hope these people and organizations are indemnified.

  93. Anthony, Isn’t an effort to deny someone the means to make a living an actionable offense?
    Meteorologists have a product to sell as you have said, and they certainly don’t want to introduce unnecessary controversy. A letter from a good lawyer should be sufficient.

  94. For amusement, I’ll sometimes visit one of the domains and blogs of the left, so this sort of thing doesn’t surprise me. This CEL/forcastthefacts.org action is just another example of the cliched modus operandi of the Left.

    Do you think that they haven’t considered punitive backlash against their open agenda of tyranny?
    Their exalted forebears, Angela Davis and Bill Ayers and myriad others allay their fears.

  95. Actually this is a good thing. It speaks volumes as to the desperation of those involved in “the cause”. They are desperately trying to influence (ie. control) any information outlet they can, in any way they can. And they are failing at it.

    We are at this stage in the agw movements failure, due primarily to the climategate leaker and the blogs (like WUWT) that continue to lay out the relevant and irrefutable facts, time after time after time. Keep up the great work Anthony et al.

  96. These people are truly dangerous, they are not the usual isolated cranks and window lickers but highly organized tech savvy and well funded but most importantly wired into the political class. They are what you might call the link from the upper echelons to the street rent a rabble and useful idiots. The whole thing just stinks of common purpose, the new political engagement strategy rolled out a few years ago, how to influence those that can get out sufficient street rabble in enough numbers to give the illusion of popular support for far reaching political strategies and policies. In this time of the tyranny of the minority it is plain that the political degenerates of the new political order would use such tactics, knowing as they do that a tiny but determined minority taking to the streets has changed public policy in the past.

    There can be no doubt that this umbrella group is connected to the highest circles of power, deniables who can be pointed and guided to attack targets that annoy the controlling elites, a simple and quite ingenious astroturf front HQ running a stable of pressure groups. Someone somewhere is making a great deal of money, this kind of fabricated ‘popular’ peoples struggle front does not come cheap. Policies made in secret and then provided with a fabricated popular backing by arms length deniable front groups controlled and financed from the top, useful idiots run like puppets. Oh how the elites must laugh, this is the kind of grubby degenerate strategy that the EU has been using for several years now and brought in by the many ‘ex’ rabid hardline revolutionary Marxist agitators. Fascist tactics brought up to date for the 21st century.

  97. @Christopher Hanley
    ” (Trying to be a pale imitation of the hero of the Yes Minister series Bernard Woolley)
    Forecast the Facts” is an oxymoron — you can’t forecast facts…”

    (Trying to be a pale imitation of the real power in ‘Yes Minister’ series, Sir Humphery)

    “Of course you can forecast facts, Bernard! Facts are infinitely malleable things. We DEFINE what they are. If we need a particular policy to be followed, we provide a suitable set of facts to support it. If that policy needs to be reversed, another set of facts will be provided. Often the same set of facts will do, presented in a different way. It is quite surprising how many different courses of action one set of facts can support, presented in different permutations.

    Facts are the ammunition we provide to Ministers to enable them to do their job of fighting for our policies and budgets. How well could we fight these battles if we could not anticipate the requirement for different calibres of ammunition and have it shipped to the Front? Really, Bernard – if I might offer a little forecast of my own, it is that your annual report is hovering dangerously close to a ‘D’ marking on soundness of judgement…”

  98. Not trying to turn too fine a point here but…

    “Forecast the Facts also includes meteorologists who have suggested that extreme cold spells or snowstorms disprove climate science.”

    How do you “disprove climate science?” Science is the process of discovering what is happening in the world, not the information that is gathered in that process. But, it fits the narrative that “climate science” only has one answer and that is CAGW, which ignores the reality that many answers are possible (and likely) in true climate science.

  99. Forecast the Facts is wrong on virtually every fact asserted.No wonder the meteorologist diverge from the opinions of these simpletons.And the extreme leftwing political agenda of Citizen Engagement Laboratory does nothing for its scientific credentials. And did i mention that is a really creepy name?

  100. America is constituted on certain principles, among them freedom of speech. Some of us, however, are eager to abandon those principles, and they attempt to censor and stifle the speech of others though intimidation, extortion, and other forms of thuggery.

    Whatever the motives of the speech stiflers, whatever their tactics, they diminish all of us. They attack our foundational principles, for which many have sacrificed. I suggest that those who hate free speech should visit the nearest veteran’s cemetery, and reflect on the price paid for liberty.

  101. CinbadtheSailor says:
    January 23, 2012 at 12:30 am
    “I see Joseph McCarthy continues his work to root out these evil people.”

    Don’t bash Joe McCarthy, he was right. The leftists in the entertainment industry, which today includes the news business, have overwhelmed the system and this is what results. They have used the same format to get control of the educational institutions. We need another Joe McCarthy today.

  102. “… They are what you might call the link from the upper echelons to the street rent a rabble and useful idiots. …” — Cassandra King

    Glenn Beck, quoting Van Jones: “Top down … bottom up … inside out …”

  103. “It’s well known that large numbers of meteorologists are climate change deniers…..”

    This statement, supposedly about positions on a scientific question, neatly reveals how we are dealing with a quasi-religious political agenda. Of course this is old news here on WUWT, but likely as not there are new readers who haven’t fully grasped that, for the ideologues of the Left, it is a rampant heresy to “deny” that mankind is endangering the planet by burning fossil fuels. It is not for them an empirical question at all; it is a matter of deeply-held belief, and a cause for great anger at its contradiction.

    But worse, “It’s well known that. . .” is a phrase of dangerous connotation. “He is a well-known ______” is the first step towards condemnation, ostracism, and if carried far enough, punishment. These are people who would not hesitate to mount campaigns that would force “deniers” from their jobs and careers. They are likely people who wouldn’t mind tying “deniers” to the stake and burning them, either, but at least for now they are prevented by contemporary norms. However, that is the mindset of the True Believer, and you ignore it at your peril. We like to think we are far more civilized and removed from the witch-hunts and Inquisitions of the Middle Ages. But we are not that far from Pol Pot.

    /Mr Lynn

  104. “…CEL is making a “list” of TV weathercasters and meteorologists who aren’t toeing the line as the paymasters of CEL want them to. They are labeled “deniers” and called out by name. I expect letters will go out to TV stations and maybe also to letters to the editor of local newspapers…”

    Sounds brilliant to me. I can’t think of anything that would damage the AGW cause more (with the possible exception of the 10:10 snuff movie). Where do I sign up to support it?

  105. Will there be a reward for turning in your local meteorologist? Perhaps extra bread or toilet paper coupons, redeemable at your local Soviet-run market?

  106. Alex the skeptic says:
    January 23, 2012 at 7:21 am
    “I believe thattwhat the US needs is a political leader who would make a clean sweep of all this scientific tyranny and bring back some sense into the scientific mainstream. Then let the AGW die a natural death. It’s presently on life support.”

    A “leader” cannot do this as long as the “green” people can use tax dollars to litigate against all progress ie new coal mining, new drilling, new refineries, new power plants, etc.. The rules need to be changed. These “watermellons”, as one of the above posters put it, simply go to the EPA or state DEQ and file suit with your tax dollars paying the tab for their attorney.

  107. I think this is a good development. The more nonsense these extremeist do the less people believe in AGW. It’s the extremist’s in AGW who are helping the denier cause the most. BTW by now, I have become an outright denier. From what we can see there is NO significant warming whatsoever even including the hadcrut adjustments UHI etc. If you correct for UHI and “past” lowering temp adjustments as per GISS et al, you can bet that there has been NO warming at all. I also maintain the CT etc.., adjust the NH ice section borders constantly to avoid showing normal ice *totals. They can’t do that with SH ice because its one big single mass and it has in fact been increasing for some years now. Also current temps are now way below anomaly (see AMSU so don’t tell me that current storm activity in USA is due to global warming , more likely global cooling LOL

  108. The David Browner Center in Berkeley, CA is engaging in bullying employees (meteorologists) of enterprises licensed to conduct business within the City limits?

    Doesn’t that violate the City of Berkeley, Commision on Labor Anti-bullying Policy?

    “Whereas, the City of Berkeley, as an employer and as a contractor of goods and services from approved Vendors and as the location for independent businesses within City limits, wishes to create positive, bullying-free work environments for City employees; and for employees and subcontractors of the City Vendors; and for employees of enterprises licensed to conduct business within the City limits;”

  109. Yes, we all have a serious problem but I for one remain optimistic that we will win through. To qoute a very great person seeking to rally his people in the face of long odds “do your worst and we shall do our best” WC speaking for all of us who refuse to bend the knee to tyrants.

  110. Chas C-Q says @ January 23, 2012 at 6:24 am
    I don’t know whether it is due to intimidation or lack of resources or something else, but I’ve noticed that almost all the local TV weather reports I’ve seen in my travels have stopped or at least pared down showing historical information.

    Lack of resources comes closest. With THE resource being time. We have X time for a weathercast. Most things we could talk about or show don’t don’t fit into that time. So we turn to consultants, who do research, which tells us what people say they want in a wxcast, which then is prioritized from most to least. Everything after a certain point is jettisoned.

    I seldom comment on global warming/change/disruption on-air, but occasionally do. It’s generally an ad-lib in response to something just said/shown. I’ve said things like CO2 is not a pollutant, it is necessary for life, and I’ve commented on the impriprioty of NBC giving Al Gore what seemed like 8 minutes on the Today Show to spout, but not provide even one second for rebuttel. And I’ve shown a simple graph showing no warming from 1998 through 2008 (or beyond). But, I believe my main purpose is to deliver a concise, well told, weather forecast for the next few days with a hint of the next 4 to 7. That’s why viewers watch.

    Oh, oh… I may have just outed myself.

  111. Jay Curtis says upon January 23, 2012 at 8:07am:

    AGW will ultimately go the way of the Piltdown Man, Phrenology and Eugenics.

    In the case of the Piltdown Man, the droning mantra is: The case itself may have been fraud, but the underlying science is basically sound.
    As far as Eugenics goes, that one is very much alive and well. They call themselves environmentalists.
    But you’re right, almost nobody believes in Phrenology, they’re too busy checking out their horoscopes.

  112. Of course Soros is involved. This is the co-founder’s bio :

    “James Rucker is co-founder and executive director of ColorOfChange.org, an online activist organization of more than 800,000 members that aims to strengthen the voice of Black America. It was founded in 2005 by James and Van Jones … James also serves as co-director of Citizen Engagement Laboratory, which uses digital media and technology to amplify the voices of underrepresented groups, particularly people of color and youth. Previously, James served as Director of Grassroots Mobilization for MoveOn.org Political Action and Moveon.org Civic Action and was instrumental in developing and executing on fundraising, technology, and campaign strategies”

    Van Jones is the self-described Marxist revolutionary who also founded “Green for All”(also funded by Soros).

    He was later chosen by President Obama as the most qualified individual in America to become the Green Jobs Czar.

    The greatest hoax ever in the history of science.

  113. I emailed the article to a couple of my local weather forecasters. One emailed me right back saying another viewer had already alerted him to it, but that he hadn’t seen the article until I sent it to him. He said he thought the campaign had “trouble written all over it.” And that he doesn’t feel any pressure from either side of the debate. Very encouraging.

  114. Is it just me or does the name of the organization itself make me think they are a bunch of losers? Forecast the facts? How does one do that without already having facts that are then not subject to forecast?
    Apart from that, just the mention of Soros and Color of Change, (Van Jones), should be enough to clue anyone with more than two nuerons to rub together that somthin’ ain’t kosher!
    Too bad Maurice Strong couldn’t be linked. Then it would be a hat trick!

  115. “climatebeagle says:
    January 23, 2012 at 7:00 am
    From their web-site, apparently even stating facts makes you a denier as they have this in their scrolling view:

    ‘Our crops and our forests are thriving because of carbon dioxide.’
    John Coleman of KUSI-TV San Diego, CA”

    Excellent example. What a DENIER he is.
    You couldn’t make it up.
    Let’s use it all over.

  116. I looked up the address (11400 West Olympic blvd.) that Forecastthefacts.org sends their faxes and I got a list from google maps of the offices that are in that particular building. The offices that are inside this building are;
    FTC Publications Inc.
    Intellix Media
    Lawyer Referral and Information for Los Angeles‎
    Maker’s Media Advertising & Marketing‎
    Professional Los Angeles Advertising Photographer: Robert Randall Productions‎
    Smith Monitoring ™‎

    I guess Daniel Souweine must have one little office in this building where his faxes go too.

  117. There is an assumption in many comments here that TV meteorologists are scientists. They are not. Most of them are broadcasting personalities who have had a bit of training in presenting weather forecasts. They work for media organizations that depend on corporate advertising that has an interest in encouraging consumerism which is based on the unsustainable use of energy and resources.

  118. DirkH says:

    Wow! Nature has Fred Singer and Arno Arrak in the comments and doesn’t censor them! What’s happening?

    I was impressed with Arno Arrak’s concise description of the situation:

    I fully agree with Fred Singer’s comments, the most important of which is that no attempt to use science to justify COP 17 was made. I will hereby bring in the relevant science that should have been considered prior to writing this panegyric to UN climate talks.

    First, taken for granted by the public is that the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide is warming the world and will lead to dangerous global warming that will fry us. There are both observational and theoretical objections to this naive view.

    The simplest observation is that carbon dioxide is still rising at the same rate it has been since 1954 but global temperature has not changed at all for the last ten years. This means no actual greenhouse effect for ten years, and yet it did not stop the meeting as Singer points out. This temperature information comes from satellite measurements that have been available since December 1978. In all that time satellites have observed only one short spurt of warming. It started with the super El Nino of 1998, in four years raised global temperature by a third of a degree, and then stopped. It was oceanic, not greenhouse in nature.

    A third of a degree is half of what IPCC has allotted to the entire twentieth century. It was this warming and not an imaginary greenhouse effect that was responsible for the record-breaking temperatures of the first decade of our century. Which means that we have no direct observations of the greenhouse effect at all for the last 31 years.

    I know what global warming advocates will now say: greenhouse effect follows from Arrhenius law who promulgated it in the nineteenth century. Natural forces can temporarily interfere with it but it is guaranteed to return. Keenlyside et al. (Nature 1st May 2008) applied this idea to the present warming pause. Wait, he says, his climate models prove it is only temporary and warming will be back in force by the year 2015. But all this is just speculation based on models, no observational data to support it.

    There is much observational data, however, for the opposite case. Ferenc Miskolczi, a Hungarian scientist at NASA, used NOAA weather balloon observations that go back to 1948 to prove that the transparency of the atmosphere in the infrared where carbon dioxide absorbs has not changed for the last 61 years. During that same period the amount of carbon dioxide in the air increased by 21.6 percent. This means that the addition of this amount of carbon dioxide to the air had no effect whatsoever on the absorption of IR by the atmosphere. And no absorption means no greenhouse effect, case closed. This is an empirical observation of nature, not derived from any theory.

    Any theory that predicts results that do not agree with this observation must be modified or abandoned. And the theory that is used to predict dangerous greenhouse warming ahead is just such a theory. It simply does not agree with what is happening in nature. Which takes away the raison d’etre of the entire UN climate meeting.

    There are of course a few apparent loopholes, one of which is abundant proof that the Arctic is warming. This, unfortunately, does not help the case for greenhouse warming either because it can be proved that Arctic warming is not greenhouse warming but is caused by Atlantic Ocean currents carrying warm water into the Arctic. (A.Arrak, E&E vol 11 issue 8, pp. 1069-1083 (2011)). There is more, but that is the missing science the editors should have taken into account before they wrote that editorial.

    If a meteorologist said the same thing, would he be put on the List?

  119. It’s already been mentioned that forecasts aren’t facts. But does this move us towards accepting the output of various climate models as facts?

    A model does not output facts. The IPCC doesn’t even refer to model outputs as predictions or projections but as scenarios. Weather forecasters also extensively use computer models to create their forecasts. Will those forecasts now be consider facts, and by extension, the output of the models used to create those forecasts as facts?

  120. This is already happening in Aus. A certain TV weather site often drops a sentence that includes the words “climate change”. They also post temperatures up to 2 deg. C above that what our official local weather station site records, especially when their average for the month is running at below par. I queried this on their forum and their answer was “that’s the figure we were given”

  121. George Soros is probably short on the dollar. He’s always shorting the currency of a nation he expects to collapse.

  122. 1. “Forecast the facts” is an oxymoron. A “fact” must have already happened to be anything but a projection or guess.

    2. These are the people, who along with their ilk, intimidated Obama into stopping the Keystone oil pipeline project that even leftist Hilary Clinton’s state department had twice approved on environmental issues. These people thusly are a proven “clear and present danger” to the well-being of America. They must be countered in the best possible way: by broadcating the facts!——the facts being that catastrophic global warming predictions are being refuted by good science and the failure of the Earth to warm in the last 15 years despite rising CO2 in the atmosphere.

  123. John Wise says:
    January 23, 2012 at 11:56 am

    There is an assumption in many comments here that TV meteorologists are scientists. They are not.

    I know it sounds a bit like a tautology, but I’m pretty sure most anybody calling themselves a meteorologist, whether you want to apply the attributive “television” (or TV, should you be so inclined) or not, is a scientist, at least by education & training.

  124. kwinterkorn says:
    January 23, 2012 at 12:39 pm
    1. “Forecast the facts” is an oxymoron. A “fact” must have already happened to be anything but a projection or guess.

    2. These are the people, who along with their ilk, intimidated Obama into stopping the Keystone oil pipeline project that even leftist Hilary Clinton’s state department had twice approved on environmental issues. These people thusly are a proven “clear and present danger” to the well-being of America. They must be countered in the best possible way: by broadcating the facts!——the facts being that catastrophic global warming predictions are being refuted by good science and the failure of the Earth to warm in the last 15 years despite rising CO2 in the atmosphere.

    The decision ignores the processes put in place and hence undermines the rule of law. To paraphrase an editorial from the Wall Street Journal, this is banana republic governance. This administration circumvents the Constitution whenever necessary to achieve it’s political desires. Remember, our president once said the Constitution is a collection of “negative rights” because of the limits it places upon government.

  125. From Daniel Souweine’s blogger.com profile – http://www.blogger.com/profile/01467349461326180860
    About me
    Industry – Religion
    Occupation – Face Reader
    Location – Berkeley, California, Singapore
    Interests – Face reading, emailing, identity theft, job creation, Energy enhancement meditation, revenge
    [bolding added]

    His interests in religion and revenge seems pretty telling in that his group that wants to force meteorologists into acting like corrupt high priests in the Church of Climate Science.

  126. Do not be discouraged about writing about your views. For a while, my letters to the editor were not published, but a recent Financial Post article about “Canada’s post-Kyoto plan” by Peter Kent, Canada’s Minister of the Environment, has invited comments. To see the article, see:

    http://business.financialpost.com/2012/01/20/canadas-post-kyoto-plan/?__lsa=55a04546

    They say: “Peter Kent’s op-ed on Canada’s post-Kyoto plans in FP Energy generated an avalanche of emails. Here is a slice of opinions on offer from FP Energy readers. Some letters have been edited for clarity and language:”

    Of the many emails that can be accessed at the above site, including mine, a quick count indicated that 25 agree with Kent and 10 disagree.

  127. “It’s well known that large numbers of meteorologists are climate change deniers. ‘

    I wonder can Daniel Souweine name one meteorologists that denies that climate changes ?
    Or are we once again the land were AGW and climate change are supposed to be the same thing .

  128. First they try to ignore you (Done)
    Then they try to ridicule you (Like calling us deniers, skeptiics, creationist etc)
    Then they fight you (That’s what happening now)
    Then you win

  129. One of the top meteorologists and weather guys – Paul Douglas – who has built and sold several broadcast weather technology companies and sold them for millions, has a weather blog at the Minneapolis Star Tribune. In it he provide great info and insight into weather in the area.

    Unfortunately he also is a rabid AGW proponent and uses his bully pulpit to force those beliefs on his readers.

    Here is what he had to say about this story:

    ‘Forecast The Facts’ Exposes America’s Climate-Denier TV Weathermen. More from Think Progress: “America’s television meteorologists are the primary source of climate information for most Americans, and are second only to scientists — who have much less access to the general public — in the level of trust they are given. Yet more than half of TV weather reporters don’t believe in human-induced climate change, even as our poisoned weather grows more extreme.”

    Paul Douglas: “I’m not advocating a meteorological witch-hunt, but there needs to be some accountability when it comes to scientific inaccuracies and half-truths. Local TV meteorologists, like it or not, are the local science authorities in their markets, and should be accurately representing the state of science, including climate science. I don’t think that’s an unreasonable expectation. I know (and respect) many of the people quoted for the Think Progress story above. They’re at the top of their game, some of the best meteorologists in the nation, specializing in weather prediction looking out days, even weeks.

    But when it comes to the long (long) range outlook (years and decades) I defer to climate scientists, 97.4% of whom have produced convincing, compelling scientific evidence that a). the atmosphere is warming, and b). much of that warming is probably tied to a nearly 40% increase in greenhouse gases. Actions have consequences. Why is that such a hard concept for some people to grasp? It’s far easier to ignore the topic (because it makes some people uncomfortable), or believe in conspiracy theories (“Al Gore is getting rich off this, those money-grubbing climate scientists are just in it for the money, the grants!”). Yes, because I’ve seen so many climate scientists driving shiny new Porsches and Ferraris to their beachside villas. Of course.

    Look, these TV meteorologists aren’t bad people, they’re not evil. Misguided? Maybe. I was skeptical in the late 80s when Dr. James Hansen was testifying before Congress about this issue. But during the 1990s I began to see noticeable changes, shifts in the weather patterns I was tracking here in Minnesota. Something had changed, the patterns had shifted – and climate change was the most likely explanation. It was no overnight epiphany, and it had nothing to do with Al Gore. I don’t pretend to have the answers, but when it comes to the climate, I defer to the experts, the PhD specialists who’ve been studying this subject their entire careers. It’s sad that climate change has become a political football, an ideological litmus test (“you can’t be a good conservative if you believe what the climate scientists are saying.”) Really?

    People can change, and faced with a growing mountain of evidence, I suspect many professional TV meteorologists will gradually change their minds in the coming years and realize that the climate scientists are probably correct. That’s my long-range forecast.

    “All truth goes through three stages. First it is ridiculed. Then it is violently opposed. Finally it is accepted as self-evident.” – Schoepenhouer

    For as smart a guy as he is about weather and weather technology, he seemingly refuses to educate himself about “climate” … his use of the thoroughly debunked “97.4% of climate scientists” believe in global warming mantra is pretty clear evidence of his lack of research into his claims and beliefs.

    It gets worse though ….

  130. Alan D McIntire says:
    January 23, 2012 at 8:12 am
    Some here were unfairly comparing “Forcastthefacts.com” tactics to “McCarthyism”.
    McCarthy was taking a stand against employing communists in the State Department and the Army. Many erroneously confuse the HUAC hearings on communists in Hollywood with McCarthy. McCarthy was a senator and had nothing to do with the House UnAmerican Activities Committee. Thanks to the “Verona” files, we now know that McCarthy was right.
    ——————————————-

    You’re right about McCarthy, but the docs are known as the Venona files.

  131. More Soylent Green! says:
    January 23, 2012 at 1:03 pm

    “The decision ignores the processes put in place and hence undermines the rule of law. To paraphrase an editorial from the Wall Street Journal, this is banana republic governance. This administration circumvents the Constitution whenever necessary to achieve it’s political desires. Remember, our president once said the Constitution is a collection of “negative rights” because of the limits it places upon government.”

    For the Obama administration and for leftists in general, the rule of law is just a convenient pretext to be ignored completely whenever it might interfere with there objectives or to be applied, even if it requires massive applications of “pretzel logic” whenever it suits there purposes. Considering that our supposedly “brilliant” President, for whom one of the few real jobs he ever had was as a lecturer in Constitutional Law, manages to hold views relative to our Constitution that are completely and demonstrably at odds with everything ever written or said by all of the old dead white guys who actually drafted it, I find his suggested “brilliance” almost laughable.
    What he calls “negative rights” are not only the core ideas, but the absolute genius of the Founders. They struggled mightily to create a form of governance that would at once overturn the role of the people being powerless subjects of whatever government they lived under, which had been ubiquitous for all of previous human history, to one where the government served at the will of the governed, and to insure that that form of government could survive the failings that had destroyed every previous attempt at democracy in all of human history. What they succeeded in creating was and is the greatest gift ever offered to humanity. That we have surrendered that gift by allowing those of a tyrannical bent to reduce us once again to powerless subjects is a dereliction of human duty for which we will all be judged in the severest terms by any future posterity that is able to retrieve the Liberty that we have squandered, because it was simply to inconvenient and uncomfortable to take a stand to preserve it. That we surrendered the last vestiges of that Liberty to such a transparent fraud as CAGW, will lead to our poorer and colder future descendants using references to this era as the same kind of automatic epithet that we currently use “Nazi” and “Fascist” for.

  132. Haha, I love the way these chiefs deploy the term denier with such barely-concealed glee, in their lame attempt to smear people who are sceptical of AGW – by trying to suggest they have holocaust denial tendencies.

    Once there was a time when people were quite shocked at being labelled a denier. Now, we just laugh in their face, the miserable under-handed scrotes that they are.

  133. Anthony,
    Like your work. This phrase needs clarification, I believe – “corporate-government-military”; are you referring to the active duty Folks and Veterans whom fight and have fought and served and died and maimed for the Constitution? I agree with you on corporate and government.
    Semper Fidelis,
    Norm Worrell

    REPLY: No, not at all – think military-industrial complex. – Anthony

  134. Alan D McIntire says:
    January 23, 2012 at 6:30 am

    This quote is a laugher:

    “…Forecast the Facts defines a denier as anyone who expressly refutes the overwhelming scientific consensus about climate change: …”

    Unfortunately, I can’t laugh at this. If this kind of campaign is successful, then we will see other progressive political groups like “forecastthefacts” attempting to “out” people who “refute the overwhelming scientific consensus…” on anything. We MUST fight this sort of progressive fascism will everything we have.

    And to all U.S. readers – PLEASE remember this (and many other CAGW-related topics) when you vote this November!

  135. Anthony, if anybody has the list of “deniers” then please post it and if there are not too many then let’s all write them an email cc’ed to tips@forecastthefacts.org saying something like:

    “You have been identified as a ‘denier’, this implies you must be doing something right! Please keep up the good work despite the bullying from forcastthefacts.com and also consider joint legal action if you have been libelled”.

  136. “Jer0me says:
    January 23, 2012 at 2:37 am
    Warwick Hughes says:
    January 23, 2012 at 2:00 am

    Here in Australia all weather reporters I hear read from the IPCC/BoM/CSIRO page. It is rare to hear a whisper counter to that. For example although I am in Canberra – I get the Sydney TV weather – and the guys are almost hysterical that Sydney is having an average January – keep on talking about heat to come. It is sad. I gather that in the US there is still more independent thought.

    Average? Not in my dimension. The historical average high is 26C. We may reached that a handful of days in January, and rarely topped it. Most of January is like December was, 21C to 24C maximums.

    Time to head for the tropics before the glaciers move in. I am not looking forward to winter down here!”

    We’re getting this same CRAP here in NZ.

    News reporters claiming a ‘sizzling summer’ and temps haven’t even topped 24/25C. When they’ve said it.

    IMO: This NZ summer is so far below average overall temp wise.

    There’s been a few 30C temp readings in the Central South Island this summer. That’s nothing though as those parts can get 30C+ temps at times during summer anyway!

    What’s worse I get sick and tired of the over exaggerated TV Weather temp readings as it is.

    TV Weather temperatures can be 2C above the actual official NIWA Temp reading for a particular NZ city. One of the worst over exaggerations was last summer. TV Weather claimed 28C for Auckland. NIWA official reading was 24.5C for that day.

  137. What next, ‘speech codes’ for wx broadcasters?

    Oh, sorry, we seem to have arrived there …

    Per wiki:

    A speech code is any rule or regulation that limits, restricts, or bans speech beyond the strict legal limitations upon freedom of speech or press found in the legal definitions of harassment, slander, libel, and fighting words. Such codes are common in the workplace, in universities, and in private organizations. The term may be applied to regulations that do not explicitly prohibit particular words or sentences. Speech codes are often applied for the purpose of suppressing hate speech or forms of social discourse thought to be disagreeable to the implementers.

  138. Perhaps Meteorologists of the media type should be encouraged to discuss climate facts not fictions as they have an audience. Some are already engaged on the side of catastrophe..

  139. George Soros, what a guy, happy to bankrupt the UK to feed his own greed. Its worth remembering that the “genius financier” got his first billion short selling the Brit pound. He didn’t care that the paper money he was playing with had to be payed for with the pensions of the working Brit. Thats 300k of British taxpayers money he just flushed down the can. I can only hope that he is doing it to support some play in wind power because he is going to lose the lot, hopefully, but improbably, it will be his money. Modern bankers never bet their own money these days. Look at the poor Goldman Sachs bankers and how terrible the crash was for them. Soros, Blair, Gore, Gillard -classic champagne socialists – screw the working man to get yourself a big Dacha and then deny the working man the fruits of his labour and outlaw everything that makes life enjoyable. Billion dollar US “foundations” are spending lavishly here in Canada, to influence everything from energy extraction to the Keystone pipeline approval process. Its a troubling echo of the cry that corporations subvert democracy. Harper was elected by a large majority in full support of Canadas’ development of fossil fuel extraction. Harper is just getting on with the job. The private “foundations” are clearly rolling up their financial sleeves too. Keep awake people there is a lot at stake if these Oligarchies can buy and intimidate their way into public policy.

  140. A. Scott says:
    January 23, 2012 at 3:48 pm

    One of the top meteorologists and weather guys – Paul Douglas – who has built and sold several broadcast weather technology companies and sold them for millions, has a weather blog at the Minneapolis Star Tribune. In it he provide great info and insight into weather in the area.

    Unfortunately he also is a rabid AGW proponent and uses his bully pulpit to force those beliefs on his readers.

    Here is what he had to say about this story:

    “But when it comes to the long (long) range outlook (years and decades) I defer to climate scientists, 97.4% of whom have produced convincing, compelling scientific evidence that a). the atmosphere is warming, and b). much of that warming is probably tied to a nearly 40% increase in greenhouse gases. Actions have consequences. Why is that such a hard concept for some people to grasp?”

    My my, just for starters maybe because poor Paul has magically transmuted a survey finding that 75/77 of Climate Scientists agreed with the tenets of CO2 = CAGW into the ‘concept’ that 97.4%[!] of them have produced “convincing, [Yea and Verily, even] compelling scientific evidence”, “probably”?

  141. “UPDATE: Forecastthefacts.org (operated by Citizen Engagement Lab) is a George Soros funded activist website. Here’s the proof (h/t to WUWT reader Jan): …”

    Why am I not surprised …

  142. “the majority of TV meteorologists don’t believe in it (climate change)”
    If I wanted to convince the public of the threat of AGW, I really wouldn’t choose to broadcast this fact.

  143. What are you guys so afraid of? Do you deny Global Warming in kneejerk fashion just because liberals believe it? What is the penalty for conservatives that do believe it? Do they get kicked out of the kool kids klub? This author is an archaeologist, not a meteorologist. [snip grow up - AW mod]

  144. I joined their campaign, explained how I think they are wrong to use conjecture which they claim as fact and then added the note – ” I am joining just so that I will know that any of your claims about your levels of support are worthless.”

  145. Anatomy of a scam… Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen, Ecomomic Development Chief Matt Kisbar, and Comish of Revenue Regan Farr push public investment in solar including millions in direct tax investment for start-ups. Bredesen, Kisbar, and Farr incorporate Silicon Ranch in Delaware while Bredesen is still in office. Bredesen leaves this off his financial disclosure form. Silicon Ranch leases space inside ( inside!) the offices of the private/state entity handing out the tax boodle. One of the VC investment companies recieving the tax dollars is Council Ventures founded by Dennis Bottoroff. Bredesen, Kisbar, and Farr dedicate hundreds of millions of tax dollars to locate two major poly-silicon manufacturers to Tennessee. Bredesen lobbies TVA (Chairman of the Board Dennis Bottoroff) to dedicate hundreds of millions as subsidies to solar projects. Bredesen leaves office. Solar Ranch begins to develop solar projects which are unsustainable without subsidies from TVA and thus from all electricity ratepayers. Silicon Ranch begins signing contracts. Champagne flows like water on the ranch.

  146. Unlike climate change types, meteorologists have to make their predictions for each day/week/month. And if they are constantly wrong, they hear about it immieiately from their viewers. Because of this, they have to maintain contact with actual reality, not just leftist propoganda, and thus end up becomming “deniers”.

  147. “Fistful of clicks” is all it takes these days to track Soros’ clandestine funding from its secret grottoes unto CEL and all its works. Do Sourwein’s drips and drabs not realize that everything they hide behind is transparent as a mist of their beloved CO2? With AW on the case, modest gentlemen-of-meteorology and their associated info-babes may yet rest easy in their media cocoons.

  148. For a good site to “Follow the Money” , look to Discover the Networks.com

    http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Thinkmap%20SDK%202.5%20Standard%20Edition/webapp/TM-1VER/index.asp?keyword=McKibben

    I looked up 350 and McKibben, he’s connected to Step-it-up; Sustainable Markets which gets money from the Rockefeller Brothers and Rockefeller Foundation. 350 has partnered with World Council of Churches; Global Greengrant Fund which is funded by Ford Foundation, George Soros’s Foundation to Promote Open Society; connected to Greenpeace, MoveOn.org. McKibben is also tied to Sojourners and Schuman Center for Media and Democracy.

    Follow the Money is right.

  149. Mazza says:
    January 23, 2012 at 5:37 am

    “Forecast the Facts defines a denier as anyone who expressly refutes the overwhelming scientific consensus about climate change”. Consensus ‘refuted’? – job done! Somebody buy these guys a dictionary.

    No, don’t!!

  150. Nick Shaw says:
    January 23, 2012 at 11:25 am

    Is it just me or does the name of the organization itself make me think they are a bunch of losers? Forecast the facts?

    Yeah; the more grandiose and presumptuous the blog/organization name, the more you should suspect they’re trying to disguise the very opposite/contrary reality about their modus operandi.

    Don’t buy your used car from ” ‘Onest Arfer”!!

  151. More on “meteorologist” Paul Douglas …

    His transgressions get much worse …

    I actually respect and admire Douglas’ work in the weather industry – but as noted his blog has been allowed to be a running promotion for Anthropogenic Global Warming and an ongoing attack on those skeptical of the same.

    Not satisfied to merely lob AGW propaganda, without questioning or researching what he is saying and supporting, here now he goes way further – to misappropriation of another’s work, editing (or using edited image) to conform to his belief and agenda (which is opposite that of the original work) and presenting the fabricated false work as that of the original author. And then when called on it, simply deleting those comments.

    In his zeal to attack disbelievers’ – and to promote his position – that global warming is real – that there “needs to be accountability” for those “misguided” people who disagree – here he goes far past that, to outright false fabrications – a severe lapse of ethics, both on science and journalistic integrity.

    In his blog post last weekend …

    “Sunday Slush, Thaw Next Week (why are so many TV meteorologists skeptical of climate change?)”

    http://www.startribune.com/blogs/137768203.html

    …. Douglas again spent a considerable part of the post on his global warming agenda. This time though far beyond the line of ethics. To promote his global warming agenda he posted this graphic:

    It is clearly a “user image” and hosted on the Star Trib servers.

    This graphic attempts to show the severe global warming that believers such as himself believe is coming. There are TWO problems with this graphic. First, it isn’t his – in small print you can read “McShane and Wyner 2010 Figure 16″ – it is a graphic from a scientific paper of the same name. Fair use MIGHT allow reproduction for personal use – but not for commercial use – which publication in the StarTribune clearly is. That is not the real problem however.

    The problem is Douglas published a FABRICATED COPY of this image – NOT the original it claims to be. And worse, the fabricated image depicts the opposite of the study he took it from. McShane and Wyner 2010 was a study of the data and statistical methods behind the thoroughly refuted “Hockey Stick” graph from Michael Mann.

    Here is the link to the actual report: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/mcshane-and-wyner-2010.pdf The REAL image is on page 36. Douglas posted a fabricated, doctored graph purporting to be from “McShane and Wyner 2010″ that had a severe warming trend APPENDED TO THE ACTUAL GRAPH in the report.

    The doctored graphic shows, again, the OPPOSITE of what the paper actually found; that the minimal data and failure to engage “university level, professional statisticians” to apply “modern statistical methods to these problems” showed the conclusions leading to the Hockey Stick were seriously deficient. The paper found there was insufficient data and scientific rigor to support the “Hockey Stick” graph – yet Douglas ignored the paper and published a fabricated version of a graphic from their report that showed exactly that – a “Hockey Stick” – a graph showing exactly what the paper found there was insufficient data and scientific support for.

    There cannot be many more serious violation – of copyright, plagiarism, misappropriation, false representation and the like, than to take a graphic from a scientific paper, fabricate a doctored version which shows the opposite as the conclusion of the paper, and then publish it in a large circulation newspaper, AND continue to note it is the work of the original authors.

    Still not the worst of it either.

    I pointed out the problem in comments to Douglas’ post late Saturday night. Sunday morning they were gone. Not only does the StarTrib allow its staff to post fabricated, fraudulent information – they allow and support outright censorship of opposing views – even when presented civilly and within the rules of the site. This is far from the first time either – dissenting views on global warming are often deleted in Douglas’ blog.

    And the image remains intact.

    I then emailed the Publisher and Editors – Sunday afternoon – pointing out the clear fabrication, the doctored document, along with link to the original. I also left voice mails for the Publisher and Editor of the paper.

    Now 3 days later there has been no reply. And no action – the fraudulent, doctored image is still there.

    I choose to believe Douglas did not do the fabrication – he simply looked for a graphic that showed what he wanted it to – that reinforced his rabid AGW beliefs, with no regard for the accuracy or validity of what he used. But I don’t think that changes a thing – it is still his responsibility – and it shows to what lengths the AGW proponents will go, and illustrates a seemingly purposeful lack of desire to learn and educate themselves on the science of the issue.

    It also shows how very educated and intelligent peopel – even those with firm background in the topic – simply choose to blindly believe, and will go to whatever lengths necessary – including “hiding the decline,” withholding data, attacking those misguided souls who disagree … and yes even outright fabrication if it serves their purpose.

  152. Scott says:
    January 24, 2012 at 4:39 am

    “What are you guys so afraid of? Do you deny Global Warming in kneejerk fashion just because liberals believe it? What is the penalty for conservatives that do believe it? Do they get kicked out of the kool kids klub? This author is an archaeologist, not a meteorologist.” [snip grow up - AW mod]

    At the risk of feeding a troll, I simply cannot resist such a wonderful setup.

    Scott, perhaps it’s *because* he’s an “archaeologist”, he was able to so effectively unearth the buried evidence of what/who was behind this nasty site.
    Why, it’s that old fossil, G. Soros; whoda thunk?

  153. Regardless of where you stand, what you believe, or what you are trying to learn about the atmosphere, I would suggest not using the wording…
    “I love this retarded logic:”
    You will lose a lot of people there.

  154. I don’t know why some may people connects global warming to politics, it science and it should not be politics. Scientists should only talk about that. Politicians dont say to surgeons how to make surgeries and it this should be the same.

  155. Media Matters {a George Soros funded partisan group), according to its 2010 tax filing, gave a $200,000 grant to Citizen Engagement Laboratory, Color of Change’s parent group.

Comments are closed.