This is really something. The job opening listed below advertises for an NSF funded program at George Mason University for education of TV weathercasters on how “unusual weather events” are connected to “climate change”. Apparently the “weather is not climate” maxim has been thrown out the window in a desperate attempt to salvage sinking public opinion on the issue.
“This project will focus on establishing a national network of on-air broadcast meteorologists, climate scientists, university research programs, and key climate and weather science organizations, to engage, train, and empower local broadcast meteorologists to educate and inform the American public about climate.”
I suppose this relates to Dr. Kevin Trenberth’s statement about TV weathercasters in his recent speech preprint to be delivered at the upcoming AMS convention in Seattle.
Nevertheless, the natural variability provides valuable opportunities for ongoing “news” and education, as teachable moments, but many scientists have not been helpful, and many TV weathercasters are poorly informed and sometimes downright hostile (Wilson 2009).
From personal experience, I imagine they’ll be more even more hostile when their TV news director gets a call from the climate re-educators asking why they didn’t link the hailstorm yesterday to global warming.
Get a load of this statement:
It will also adapt and test conflict resolution theory and practice to engage meteorologists who reject the scientific consensus and climate scientists in constructive dialogue.
Here is the PDF hosted at NCAR/UCAR, and here is that PDF put to plain text below.
 |
George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication Postdoctoral Research Fellow
The George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication invites applications for a full-time Postdoctoral Research Fellow to support an NSF-funded planning grant titled Making the Global Local: Unusual Weather Events as Climate Change Education Opportunities. The goal of this project is to establish a national network of climate and weather science organizations, and university research and teaching programs, to engage, train, and empower local broadcast meteorologists to educate and inform the American public about climate change. The project will integrate informal learning, mass communication, and experiential learning theories to develop and test new pedagogical approaches to informal science education through frequent mass media exposure, linked to realworld experience (i.e., the local weather). It will also adapt and test conflict resolution theory and practice to engage meteorologists who reject the scientific consensus and climate scientists in constructive dialogue. Collaborating institutions include National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, American Meteorological Society, National Weather Association, American Association of State Climatologists, American Geophysical Union, Climate Central, National Environmental Education Foundation, and Yale and Cornell universities.
Candidates must have a PhD in a relevant social or learning science discipline, and a track record of published journal articles and/or conference papers on relevant topics of inquiry including climate change communication, science communication and/or formal or informal science education. Experience in survey research, qualitative data collection, strategic (program) planning, professional development, and climate science is preferred. Additional skills required include competence in planning and multitasking, attention to detail, excellent organizational skills, ability to communicate verbally and in writing, and the ability to adapt to the changing demands of a dynamic research environment.
For full consideration, interested and qualified applicants must submit the online faculty application for position #F9401z. Applications should include (a) cover letter including a statement of research interests and career goals, and names and contact information of two professional references, and (b) a vita.
h/t to Samuel Patterson at www.climatequotes.com
It’s bad enough for the CAGW crowd when weathermen point out that rural temperatures are often lower than urban ones. Weather forecasters not blaming extreme weather on man made climate change must be doubly irritating.
I think the people who think this might work need to go through some of the pop psychology fads of the last 30 years and see how they turned out. These fads even were embraced briefly by major corporations. My favorite was one where a long questionaire had to be filled out and everyone’s answers and scores were reviewed in front of their co-workers to see who was trying to achieve the best goals and were the best people. The conclusion we were lead to was that we all should want to be like the boss. It ended up angering the lowest level people and the mid-level folks simply refered to is as “suck-up psycology” and wondered aloud (to their bosses) how anyone could fall for this c__p. I suspect GMU will be equally as effective.
Frank K. says:
January 15, 2011 at 12:45 pm
Here…I’ve reworded the posting for George Mason University to better reflect the intent…
Now if only you could hack the GMU site and put your version up instead…!
“Resistance is futile”
The Borg.
Ve have un dossier on you.
Moderator, Please check the filter for my previous post.
Thanks.
[You have made many posts. On what thread and for which specific post are you searching? Robt]
They just keep on getting creepier and more desperate.
Is it because they subconsciously sense the death of their religion or is some group like the Real Climate team pushing this crap behind the scenes?
Lysenkoism! Ye must BELIEVE! What a crock!
http://www.skepdic.com/lysenko.html
NSF* = Not Safe For *Anything!
There should be a law when they us the words “Climate Change”, “Global Warming”, or “Climate Disruption”, they must pre-qualify it if they they are referring to it as Man-Made, so every one knows what they are really talking about.
Re-education, weren’t the Stalanists, Maoists and Nazis big into that?
Little good it did them…
crosspatch says: Wrote
January 15, 2011 at 12:15 pm
“Apparently the “weather is not climate” maxim has been thrown out the window in a desperate attempt to salvage sinking public opinion on the issue.”
“The difference is that coming out of colleges and universities we now have a crop of meteorologists who have been indoctrinated in AGW since kindergarten so to them it is “fact”. They know nothing different and only “kooks” question it. It has been driven into them as “known fact” literally since nursery school. So “unusual weather events” are connected to “climate change” would seem quite natural to them.”
They call this Cognitive Dissonance.
“Cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding conflicting ideas simultaneously. The theory of cognitive dissonance proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance. They do this by changing their attitudes, beliefs, and actions.[1] Dissonance is also reduced by justifying, blaming, and denying. It is one of the most influential and extensively studied theories in social psychology.
Experience can clash with expectations, as, for example, with buyer’s remorse following the purchase of an expensive item. In a state of dissonance, people may feel surprise,[1] dread, guilt, anger, or embarrassment. People are biased to think of their choices as correct, despite any contrary evidence. This bias gives dissonance theory its predictive power, shedding light on otherwise puzzling irrational and destructive behavior.
A classical example of this idea (and the origin of the expression “sour grapes”) is expressed in the fable The Fox and the Grapes by Aesop (ca. 620–564 BCE). In the story, a fox sees some high-hanging grapes and wishes to eat them. When the fox is unable to think of a way to reach them, he surmises that the grapes are probably not worth eating, as they must not be ripe or that they are sour. This example follows a pattern: one desires something, finds it unattainable, and reduces one’s dissonance by criticizing it. Jon Elster calls this pattern “adaptive preference formation.”[2] When the fox fails to reach the grapes, he decides he does not want them after all, an example of adaptive preference formation designed to reduce cognitive dissonance.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
Anthony
Have you been re-educated that Kevin Trenberth’s first name is really Kenneth?
Inquiring minds would like to know
This is a joke, right? Surely nobody could propose this with a straight face.
Next it will be degree courses in Climate Change.
This seems more like a spoof. Are you sure it isn’t?
If it’s legit, and indeed seems to be asking that only biased Ph.D.’s need apply, I can’t imagine anything worse than putting into place in our Ivory Towers biased researchers and scientists, who not only do the research, submit the articles, form the peer review club, AND serve as professional journal editors.
Our only hope is that “We the people” have not become “We the sheeple”.
Robert E. Phelan says:
January 15, 2011 at 12:15 pm
“It might be worth noting that the AMS annual meeting is scheduled for January 23-27 in Seattle.”
Just in time for nice arctic cold front dipping down the West Coast in the form of
a “Queen Charlotte Clipper.” with attendant wind down the Frazier River canyon
where there is nothing between you and the Yukon but a few Sitka Spruce and
Moose antlers…
-snicker-
Jeff Alberts says:
January 15, 2011 at 1:01 pm
===========================================================
latitude says:
January 15, 2011 at 12:31 pm
I’m all for it….
If anyone thinks climate scientists can screw up a forecast….
…just wait until they have TV weathermen doing it
By the end of the first month, there won’t be anyone that believes………
======================================================
Hate to break it to you, but TV weather folks are no better at predicting the weather 3 days out than climate scientists are at predicting 100 years out.
===========================================================
amd Jeff, I hate to break it to you, but that was my point
As Anthony might say, “KNEEL BEFORE ZOD!”
I say, let ’em go ahead & try….every attempt they make to tie local weather events to CAGW blows up in their faces & loses them even further credibility with the voting public!
Ridiculous claims such as the recent NTY article blaming ongoing snowstorms on climate change are a good example….more recently, I see that the Arctic ice mass just isn’t cooperating, nor are hurricane forecasts. The harder these folks try to push their case, the worse it looks.
What does John Coleman have to say about all this “meteorologist re-education,” I wonder?
First a University program… Next a boot camp…
What happens to those who won’t follow the Party Line? Reform through labor??
G.
Pity it is so hard for US citizens to get visas to North Korea. The Grand Peoples Study House in Pyongyang would be the idea venue.
Ah, ok. You made it sound like weather forecasts are currently accurate in any meaningful way.
intrepid_wanders says: “From the Wegman report to the Koch Brothers, nothing but vitriol for GMU. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Mercatus_Center
Why would the they get a grant from the NSF?”
Because the NSF has found that universities can be bought if you write a large enough check?
Michael says:
January 15, 2011 at 2:02 pm
crosspatch says: Wrote
January 15, 2011 at 12:15 pm
“A classical example of this idea (and the origin of the expression “sour grapes”) is expressed in the fable The Fox and the Grapes by Aesop (ca. 620–564 BCE).”
An older and more learned example is the story of King David and Bathsheba. After his prophet Nathan explained to him “You are that man,” David ripped his garments, dressed in rags and covered himself in ashes. Hansen, Jones, Mann and the whole lot should be fortunate enough to go through the same experience.