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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
‘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.
The theme of the 2011 AMS Annual Meeting is “Communicating Weather and Climate.” http://www.ametsoc.org/meet/annual/index.html
A tour of the Meeting’s web site suggests that the move to re-educate meteorologists is well under way. Trenberth, Somerville, Pope, Cicerone, Emanuael, Karoly…. they’ll all be presenting.’
Maybe the AMS Members should boycott the meeting and set up a protest in the lobby. Just a thought.
@Michael says:
January 15, 2011 at 1:27 pm
You left out the most worrying personal part for most people, there children and CAGW education in schools. I have never seen a survey of people by age that believe in AGW but i’d put money on a high belisf in AGW in the younger generation as it was taught to them at a young age.
I will admit i’m not an expert on AGW curriculum but i’d be interested if they gave the whole picture of the uncertainty in the theory.
Just a couple of ideas for the NSF.
I remember that during the Korean War allied prisoners were subjected to re-education by their Chinese captors. Dissent was punished by several days locked up in a blacked out shed. Most just demonstrated whole hearted agreement with their captors until they were released and free to curse them.
In Morocco there was a Muslim zealot who had a 100% success in converting non-believers to Islam. They were bound and gradually lowered into a vat of boiling oil. If, or should I say when, they recanted the lowering stopped. History does not record whether this was classified as re-education.
As if my donations boycott of my alma matter needed further reinforcement.
Having prostituted themselves to the global warming fraud they now want to put a prostitute in the guise of local weather talent under a shady lamp post in every TV and radio station .
How long before affirmative action demands a global warming advocate be on each station for fairness and how long before advertisers are pressured to demand equal global warming time while reporting the weather.
If this were to succeed it will make weather forecasting on an equal plane with astrology.
It’s already in play. In the New York Times today is an article about an upcoming “Superstorm” in California which will flood the central valley among other things. It is by Felicity Barringer. In it is the paragraph, “Climate scientists have for years noted that the rising temperature of the earth’s atmosphere increases the amount of energy it stores, making more violent and extreme weather events more likely.” It is stated as if it it just fact not theory. Completely disregarding current evidence about lack of increase in storm strength and frequency, historical records indicating that periods of warmth tended to have fewer major weather events, and competing theories such as that the warmth tends to reduce the temperature differentials and thus reduces turbulance resulting in fewer storms.
All in all it seems the meme that global warming is increasing the frequence and strength of extreme weather events is getting play and is becoming stronger.
That’s “frequency” in the final sentence.
Anthony, the article is about a conference by the US Geological Survey, Federal Emergency Management Agency, and the California Emergency Management Agency held in Sacramento. The article didn’t make clear whether the conference was focused on or motivated by the “increased risk” due to global warming or if it was in response to historical data about superstorms and flooding in California’s history and was just reasonable disaster management planning. It might be interesting to find out more about it.
I propose that GMU adds supplemental field work with trips to Churchill, Manitoba to see the few remaining polar bears before extinction due to ah, climate change. And if the students and instructors can be filmed hand feeding those poor starving bears at the dump, then they can be awarded their degrees posthumously.
The specter of government-sponsored “re-education programs” should be alarming. Do these bureaucrats and their bosses have any understanding of history? Maybe they do….
Certain comments have been scrubbed from this thread comment section in a back and forth reference to another posters comment. A couple of youtube videos about Norman Dodd and David Rockefeller, etc.
It is perfectly OK with me If done by the site owner. This post is just a heads up in case it wasn’t.
“Weather is not climate, unless it benefits me” is a common way of thinking that is difficult to deal with from the outside, because the person using it feels justified in the double-standard. Obviously it is used outside the AGW context.
It is almost impossible to correct unless your voice is louder than the speaker, and the AGW crowd still has a rhetorical volume advantage in the “public conversation,” for reasons of co-advantageous political considerations.
Why does CO2 get the attention when H2O is the larger driver? Because controlling H2O, apart from the assumption of silliness, doesn’t allow you to control economic activity. In other words, attack CO2 and you have more allies.
You can bet your bippy that they uncertainties are not even mentioned, and in fact are actively blocked from discussion. Parents have horror stories to tell of what happened to their kids if they dared question any part of The Narrative™.
Great post, but “… relates to Dr. Kenneth Trenberth’s …” — isn’t that “Kevin”? I thought “Kenneth” was Dr. Briffa of Yamal fame.
[Fixed, thanks. ~dbs]
Michael;
Well, a long post, but I guess it was justified. I’ve copied and saved it.
BTW, for anyone wanting a fantastic tool for archiving copy/pastes, check out clipmate.com . I’ve used it for years, and wouldn’t be without it.
That’s another bad news for American taxpayers. Endless use of tax money to further scare taxpayers so that they will pay more without question, like more carbon and energy taxes, more environmental regulation fees.
Fascinating video, Michael, about the pushing of a political idea regardless of whether it is true or not. Quite relevant to the climate wars . . . Thanks too for the G. Edward Griffin piece.
“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.”
Nothing like a bit of intimidation to get forecasters to toe the line.
Looks like we really have to redouble our efforts in 2011, folks..!
The Ministry of Propaganda is in full force.
Mighty fine article and posts here!
What USED to be taught as “common sense” in the schools is now definitely lacking.
The “Concensus-building” tactics I have heard about before. Thanks for the poster-piece(s) on that! Brought back some foggy memories of a couple of ‘social experiments’ we did in school years ago, centering on that very topic! Concensus-building is VERY undemocratic, and very much opposite to “Robert’s Rules of Order”-styled meeting methods.
Good posts; all of them!
Please dear God let them call it:
The Ministry Of Climate Truth ….
It’s a BAaaaad idea to try to intimidate the guys with the cameras and microphones who’ve been getting the predictions right…
I see nothing wrong with opening a dialogue. I do find the “conflict resolution” wording odd. I am a part of the broadcast media and currently study climate science along with weather. Questioning science is healthy and any good climate scientist admits the uncertainty. Some things are known…some unknown. But both sides need to be more open to discussion. Just dismissing each other helps no one. Treating each other with respect and helping each other dig into the science and answer the questions is a good goal to have. That’s how I think the approach needs to happen.