(Note: I can back Mike up on this, I’ve been getting several letters like this from my TV Meteorologist friends from around the country, all nearly identically worded. – Anthony)
Guest post by Mike Alger
If you thought the dishonest tactics taken by Gleick et al were somewhat under the tableau of honesty, I am beginning to find that it is a pattern that is beings followed by much of the CAGW movement as a whole. Let me illustrate:
Just a few days after the smoke was just beginning to clear from Gleickgate (although I imagine there will be a stench to come from it from some time), I received what at first appeared to be a sincere letter from a well meaning viewer of my television weather reports. Here is the letter:
“I am John Lopez, and I am a viewer here in Reno and I’m interested in the issue of climate change and how it is affecting our weather. As someone who studies these things, I was hoping to get your opinion.
As I’m sure you’re aware, there’s been a lot of extreme weather recently, and last year set records for severe weather events. From what I have read, climate change is a factor in all of this. Because I’m interested in climate change and weather, I have joined a campaign called Forecast the Facts, which is focused on how broadcast meteorologists report on this important issue. They’ve helped to put me in touch with reporters like you to ask them their views.
I know that the American Meteorological Society says that human-induced climate change is occurring and is largely created by humans. I’m also aware of reports that climate change is likely to have an impact on weather events like heat waves, droughts, and shifting rainfall patterns. Do you agree with the AMS’ position? Do you think climate change is happening? And do you think it will have an impact on weather in Reno?”
Now, normally I’d be happy to have a discussion about what I think we know and what I think we don’t know about all this, as well as challenge some of his assumptions (last year set records for severe events, etx…), but as had already been brought up in his fine forum and others, “Forecast the Facts” is designed only to pressure the heretics in the broadcast meteorology community for their a apostatic refusal to toe the party line on CAGW. So they try to phish answers from broadcast mets to find out what side of the fence they lean, and then they go after the cretins…pitchforks raised in holy banner…all the way to their nearest newspaper and TV station general manager.
I still retain enough of a Pollyannish view about life that I was willing to see if this John Lopez really existed, and if so if he was a local who fell in with a bad lot. So I responded simply that the issues he brought up were complicated and multifaceted, and would be best explained in person. I then invited him down to the TV station where we could have a great talk about it. If he lived in our area and was sincere in trying to educate himself on at least some of the many factors involved in climate, then that should be easy. If not, and he was cooped up in “Forecast the Facts” strategic war room, then I wouldn’t hear from him again.
That was nearly a month ago. I’m sure I don’t have to tell you what the response was (n’t).
I have always heard that in a court of law that truth is a good defense. It appears like there’s too little of that going around in the CAGW camp.
Mike Alger
Chief Meteorologist
KTVN TV
Reno, NV
entrapment comes to mind although in a US court room its actually innocent until proven guilty…
The surveys have been so poorly designed that any claim of consensus is absurd. Here’s an example:
Is there agreement amongst climate scientists on the IPCC AR4 WG1?
source: http://www.jamstec.go.jp/frcgc/research/d5/jdannan/survey.pdf
excerpt:
ABSTRACT. An online poll of scientists’ opinions shows that, while there is strong agreement on the important role of anthropogenically-caused radiative forcing of CO2 in climate change and with the largest group supporting the IPCC report, there is not a universal agreement among climate scientists about climate science as represented in the IPCC’s WG1. The claim that the human input of CO2 is not an important climate forcing is found to be false in our survey. However, there remains substantial disagreement about the magnitude of its impacts. The IPCC WG1 perspective is the mean response, though there are interesting differences between mean responses in the USA and in the EU. There are, also, a significant number of climate scientists who disagree with the IPCC WG1 perspective.
In our poll, there were 140 responses out of the 1807 who were contacted by the first author.
note: bold emphasis is mine
Only 8% of climate scientists bothered to respond to the Pielke and Annan climate survey. 70% of the 8% represents a scientific consensus of opinion?
On another blog I read that Gleike could no longer be considered a liar since he owned up to lying. LOL!!! Following that tortured logic I suppose a murderer could not be called a murderer if he confessed to being a murderer. Unbelievable!!!
Great response, make them appear in person to prove they are genuinely concerned.
On the offchance a real person shows up, point out that according to 98% of the experts, “more research is needed”.
That’s all they want to hear anyway.
Defunding all that “additional research” can then be handled at the ballot box.
Climate change solved!
“I am John Lopez, and I am a viewer here in Reno…”
————————————————-
“Any business or enterprise attempted with liars will always fail.”
kbray.
Good for you Mike, If the letter was from a genuine young person who had an inquiring mind it would have been worded a little differently, don’t you think!
Global cooling must be fought. Each of us must release as much CO2 as possible.
Forecast The Facts’ PR agency is FitzGibbon Media, a “progressive” communications firm. This URL might interest you as it has quite a bit about Forecast the Facts:
http://fitzgibbonmedia.com/news?pg=4
One thing I found on that page was this:
Forecast the facts, fight the smears, join the truth team, attackwatch, moveon, politifact, nolabels, the coffee party, climate science rapid response team, media matters for ‘mericuh, think progress . . .
Maurizio Morabito (omnologos) says:
March 23, 2012 at 10:03 am
‘Unless FtF is into divination that is.’
That seems a reasonable conclusion and could explain a lot about climate science.
From the article:
I have always heard that in a court of law that truth is a good defense.
In American jurisprudence the truth is an absolute defense. It is essential to counter the misinformation and outright lies told by those pushing the CAGW [and AGW] stories.
The jury is still out on AGW. But in science that means it is a conjecture, not a hypothesis, which is testable, and not a theory,which makes accurate predictions. And of course there is zero evidence supporting catastrophic AGW.
This is an issue of truth versus propaganda. By countering false statements it will eventually become clear that the “carbon” scare is baseless. We can already see that the public is beginning to question CAGW/AGW. Keep the pressure on. The truth has a way of emerging. It just takes time and persistence.
This much is straight from their website:
http://forecastthefacts.org/about/
OUR PARTNERS: 350 .org, CEL
350 is Jim Hansen’s outfit. CEL’s website has this statement:
I think it’s safe to say that this is a left-wing operation. As I said above, they’re not exactly trying to hide any of this.
Maybe Anthony and Mike and the others who’ve received these emails can extract the header details so that we can examine the mail routings…
These guys are kind of creepy aren’t they? Speaking of David Axelrod, here is a link to a short clip of him being interviewed by Fox’s Bret Baier. It is obvious Axelrod is not used to being asked tough questions by a mostly adoring media:
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/03/21/david-axelrod-interview-baier-obama-explanations/
Can we all agree that human induced climate change is caused by humans?
Reno, Nevada. What kind of idiot would move into the middle of a desert and into what isn’t much more than a gambling casino and then become interested in more accurate weather information?
Either the letter is a fake or this Forecast the Facts is a BS organization designed to discredit people who question the settled science.
I have received two of these emails (one the last week of February, a second the first week of March). They are nearly identical. I forwarded them and my response to WUWT. I basically created a form response that I will use if I received any more.
I included some of what had been discussed here when “Forecast the Facts” first came to light. I gave my permission to be added to its list of “bad” TV meteorologists/forecasters/weathermen. I questioned if the sender was an actual viewer, based on the email address, what appears to be a form email, and what appears to be a suggested subject line. I extended an invitation to happily engage in a true person to person exchange and noted the sender had my email but I didn’t have theirs (since the domain was @forecastthefacts.org).
I noted the people behind forecastthefacts.org aren’t interested in facts. They are interested in intimidation, suppression of free speech, and impeding the scientific method, and then offered a few clues from the ftf.org home page.
Just in case an actual viewer wrote the email and saw my reply, I extended an invitation to happily engage in a true person to person exchange and noted the sender had my email but I didn’t have theirs (since the domain was @forecastthefacts.org). I suggested to the senders, on the chance they are sincere and truly worried, they spend many hours over the course of many days and weeks reading WUWT, a couple other blogs, and that they read http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02148/RSL-HouseOfCommons_2148505a.pdf
So they now want the T.V meteorologist to sing there song or take them to the gallows if they don’t? Sad. It’s about face time more then truth and it’s annoying and sad.
Have you ever had a WordPress account with the email address you’re using? If so, that’s the cause. I don’t know the work-around.
“Etch-a-Sketch Alarmism”, a phrase by Huh McCulloch 9:49 am
A great phrase to remember. It captures the disconnect from data, the impermanance of the fear, the fact that they are toying with you, and the end result is to shake thing up.
“human-induced climate change is occurring and is largely created by humans.” (A.K.A. John Lopez
“there was over a one degree cooling of the atmosphere’s temperature or something like that. Can you see where I’m going with this, or am I just another tree hugging earth lover with my head in the polluted clouds?” (Sherri Quammen)
With warmista intellect of this calibre on display it is a wonder that they can even dress or feed themselves. If ever proof that Darwin was wrong is needed we have it here.. By natural selection they should be long gone.
Take a look at this…
http://openline.medialine.com/archive/index.php/t-41867.html
Feb 24th 2012, 11:35 AM
Anyone else been contacted by viewers who have “joined” the “Forecast The Facts” campaign? I got this email today when we’re nearly 25 above normal and expecting severe storms, less than a week after our only shot of snow so far this winter…(emphasis mine):
I am a viewer here in A____ and Im interested in the issue of climate change and how it is affecting our weather. As someone who studies these things, I was hoping to get your opinion.
As Im sure youre aware, theres been a lot of extreme weather recently, and last year set records for severe weather events. From what I have read, climate change is a factor in all of this. Because Im interested in climate change and weather, I have joined a campaign called Forecast the Facts, which is focused on how broadcast meteorologists report on this important issue. Theyve helped to put me in touch with reporters like you to ask them their views.
I know that the American Meteorological Society says that human-induced climate change is occurring and is largely created by humans. Im also aware of reports that climate change is likely to have an impact on weather events like heat waves, droughts, and shifting rainfall patterns. Do you agree with the AMS position? Do you think climate change is happening? And do you think it will have an impact on weather in A___?
Feels like (a) a form email and (b) a troll to me. Anyone else getting this or something like it?
—
Looks like a phishing scam from FTF…it would be interesting to track the origin of the e-mail.
Curry had a March 6th post on the most recent AMS survey.
AMS members surveyed on global warming
http://judithcurry.com/2012/03/06/ams-members-surveyed-on-global-warming/
Comments ripped the AMS survey to shreds.
Consider a carefully designed WUWT survey for AMS members where anonymity is guaranteed. The results would be very interesting if they include chi analysis. The frequency analysis based on poorly designed questions has to stop.
I know they’re harassing at least one TV station here in Grand Rapids, Mi. “Turn in your local weatherman for heresy!!”
Scottish Sceptic says on March 23, 2012 at 9:46 am:
“… or to put it another way, that one sceptic is worth a 1,000,000 warmists.”
========
“1,000,000 warmists.”?? – What, as many as that? – I thought there was, according to their own claims, only around 2500 of them. – Well, unless you also count the vast army of mimicking water-melon people that follow in their wake.
I live in the Reno metro area, and Mike is a longtime, excellent meteorologist in an area that is challenging to forecast the weather.
In addition, this article was on NASA describing how the solar storms have warmed the atmosphere: http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/
I always find it amusing that the AGW crowd assumes that the climate model is static, and that any point is the zero occurrence. I have yet to have ANYONE explain to me at what point the climate (or geology for that matter) have ever STOPPED changing.