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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.
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.
Kohl P says:
January 22, 2012 at 11:43 pm
“This really is like McCarthyism isn’t it?”
Much more like Stalinism.
“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
http://www.nsaa.org/nsaa/images/keep_winter_cool_sml1.gif
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.
Are Occupy Re-education camps coming next?
“It’s well known that large numbers of meteorologists are climate change deniers…..”
The irony is just exquisite …….
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.
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……
Citizen Engagement Laboratory?
I thought obesity was a problem?
Never mind, I need to learn to proof read.
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?
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”.
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?
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
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.
“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.
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,
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
“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.
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.
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.
Wait. . . A large amount of meteorologists are ‘Deniers’? What happened to “Its settled” and there is “Agreement among practically all scientists”?
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.
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?
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.