(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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Would it matter if they used an “Etch-a-Sketch”, a blank piece of paper or notebook, or a blank computer screen in a word processor (or any other program that lets you start afresh)?
They’re all the same–what matters is the content added.
As I see it no one bothers to define Climate- everone has it ass backword-climate is the results of weather -here is a proper definition:
Definitions of the Climate Discussion
What is Climate?
Definition:A few hundred thousand weather days end to end for a specific location. ( an average pattern)
How many climates are there in the world?
Every part of the country and the world has a unique climate -the south of France, the North slope of Alaska, the heart of Africa, the northeast Great Lakes region of the US ,the north of Italy, the south of Italy,thousands of different climates etc.
What is weather?
The atmospheric conditions where you are.
Can mankind control the weather?
We have tried for thousands of years from the Indian rainmaker, to the cloud seeders of the 1950-60. Man can not control the weather, then how the hell can man be controlling the climate. This whole B.S of MANN-made global warming is a fairy tale. The MANNipulation of temperature data is a crime against humanity and these criminals should be put in jail.
Be careful of the Pied Pipers of Gorezillaism- remember Hamlin- except it is happening to ignorant supposed adults.
Climatologists”- are temperature historians. If they chose to project into the future they have gone from historians to Flat Screen fortune tellers. “computer generated Models” “garbage in is garbage out”
Another definition: “Climatologist” : A temperature and weather historian. If one projects to future events then they are “fortune teller” Weathermen do a somewhat better job of predicting the future- 30 to 60 % correct.
Edit note; “that is beings followed ” → that is being followed.
____
If you use Firefox, install the Lazarus add-on. It saves as you type, and can be set to hold the text or full form data for as long as you want, pretty much. Default is 14 hrs. I set mine to 54 weeks, just because! 😉 Searchable, accessed with a right-click in the reply box, and also includes direct URL link to the site and page you were on at the time.
In re: zootcadillac at 9:50 AM I had the problem and the next
time I typed in one of my other email addresses and it worked.
It doesn’t take more than a minute or so to see where Forecastthefacts.org is coming from, and what they’re all about. They even boast about partnering with 350.org and the League of Conservation Voters.
What I really don’t get is how a meteorologist would forecast the weather differently based on his opinion of AGW, or for that matter, his aversion to shoveling snow or washing dishes. I’m sorta funny like that, I want accurate weather forecasts, not opinions on the evils of CO2.
A weather forecaster’s credibility comes from…..uh….forecasting, about a week at a time. What the meteorologist does outside the weather broadcast is an altogether different matter.
“We should see some light showers by mid morning Tuesday, then partial clearing in the afternoon with temps in the mid 60’s. By 2100 sea levels are expected to be up by 15 feet, and polar bears will be extinct.” — A Forecast The Facts weather report
If you search for some of the phrases in that letter, you find meteorologists who are discussing the letter.
http://openline.medialine.com/showthread.php?p=791530
There also is a reply from ForecastTheFacts, part of which is:
… Last week, we sent out an email to a small group of our supporters, directing them to a webpage where they could look up their local TV meteorologists, and email them through our system. Because we could not actually send an email through users’ individual account, we sent an email on their behalf from an email address that ended @forecastthefacts.org.
You can look at the webpage users saw here:
http://forecastthefacts.org/ask_your_meteorologist/
…
If you try out the web site, you find that the only option being offered to supporters are “SEND” buttons. The text of the email is generated by ForecastTheFacts, and supporters can not send a different message, so the “sent an email on their behalf” phrasing is a somewhat strained definition of what is happening. They are making the meteorologist’s email addresses visible to the public, so someone can independently contact them if they wish to.
ForecastTheFacts does not say how long they will retain the email addresses of participants, nor what else they might do with them. Their privacy policy explains what they do with survey and petition addresses, but does as this email relay is not labeled as either type of activity then the limits of their activities are not defined.
Write your comments in a text editor (mind you, vi is a symlink to ed, & emacs is a symlink to rm -rf ${HOME}), save it to a file like /home/stickylegs/Climate/wattsupwiththat.com/20120323.comment15.txt and cut&paste from there. You can also run it though a parser (to make sure your tags are closed), spellcheck it, etc.
“I know that the American Meteorological Society says that human-induced climate change is occurring and is largely created by humans.”
Oh! and silly old me, I thought that if human induced climate change is occurring it is largely created by pigs that can fly?
Do not agree if You compare liberalism with different leftist isms, refering to ideologies that in theory advocates of freedom and equality for the individual, but never been practiced in the real world … (Generally socialism, regardless of type and close related communism.)
OT
WWF is running a campaign here in Sweden, including through advertising in the mobiles, on Earth Hour. They are encourage people to challenge other people to make the best contribution to the climate. A friend gave two challenges, both based on turning on as many lights as possible. In the first case, to celebrate life, hope and knowledge. In the second case to send a thought to all the poor people who already suffered and those who will suffer, badly affected by the proponent (the authentic deniers) of the climate threat …
/OT
Any change could be a threat, if not accepted and adaptation fails …
P.S. The 2.x version of Lazarus is for Firefox. There are also 3.x versions, less elaborate but adequate, for Chrome and Safari.
johnl says:
March 23, 2012 at 10:48 am
Can we all agree that human induced climate change is caused by humans?
Sorry John, that is “mostly” caused by humans. And there is a big difference between “mostly” caused and “completely” caused (apologies to “The Princess Bride”)
😉
Some of us are not using traditional MicroSoft software to view the web. When I checked the Forecast the Facts website there was a link, of sorts, from “Here’s our methodology” that gave something that appeared as a blank box.
For those who might be seeing a blank box, here’s what’s in it (as data-tip=):
“Forecast the Facts defines a denier as anyone who expressly rejects the overwhelming scientific consensus about climate change: that it is real, largely caused by humans, and already having profound impacts on our world. We only include meteorologists who currently report on the weather, whether as regular broadcasters on local or national news stations, or as guest commentators on cable media outlets. We track the views of meteorologists through their on-air statements, blog posts, social media activity, public appearances, interviews, and interactions with viewers.”
There is another “data-tip=” at “See the petition”:
“I urge the AMS Council to immediately pass a new information statement that reflects the widespread scientific consensus that climate change is increasingly impacting our planet, and then vigorously promote that statement to AMS members.”
As someone who is not a meteorologist or climatologist, but who generally favors democracy over autocracy, I urge an immediate worldwide plebiscite to determine the truth of the cutting issues of our time:
YES or NO: Heavy objects fall faster than light ones.
YES or NO: We are at the center of the universe.
YES or NO: We are overheating the earth.
YES or NO: Faith trumps science and logic.
YES or NO: Force trumps science and logic.
– – – – – –
YES, the truth will be found, and the deniers punished.
Simple, use a different email address.
On the subject of Forecast the Facts, the thing that had me most curious is they started a campaign & petition to ask GM not to give money to Heartland.
Anyway the thing that I found curious is then they first announced this petition, the very first time it was reported in the press, in fact their initial press release on March 5th – they said they had 10,000 signatures from GM owners on their petition.
See here:
http://forecastthefacts.org/press/releases/2012/3/5/more-10000-gm-owners-demand-company-pull-its-suppo/
Notice the date on the press release – March 5th
“More than 10,000 GM Owners Demand the Company Pull Its Support from the Heartland Institute”
“20,000 total Americans have joined campaign against GM hypocrisy on climate change”
And if I go to their web site today, 2.5 weeks later, it says they have 10,000 signatures from GM owners on their petition.
As of now, – March 23rd – this web page says:
http://www.forecastthefacts.org/stories/gm_heartland/
“10,000 GM Owners Demand the Company Stop Funding the Heartland Institute Immediately”
“More than 10,000 GM owners, and 20,000 total Americans, have joined the campaign calling on GM to stop funding the climate change-denying Heartland Institute. See what they have to say below, and then sign the petition here: ”
So:
1. How did they get 10,000 signatures from GM owners so quickly – apparently instantly?
2. How come the number hasn’t moved in the past 2.5 weeks?
Did they really have 10,000/20,000 signatures 2.5 weeks ago? How did they get them? Or were they using a “trick”?
I believe Allan’s title of ‘More fakery from Forecast the Facts” is in reference to this post from Jan.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/22/forecastthefacts-org-political-activists-gagging-our-tv-meteorologists-on-climate-issues/#more-55144
Mike Mangan says:
March 23, 2012 at 11:11 am
I know they’re harassing at least one TV station here in Grand Rapids, Mi. “Turn in your local weatherman for heresy!!”
Yea, one of them is a member of ICECAP
Well, it looks like Daniel Souweine, Twitter @mackabean Berkeley, CA, who claims the title of Co-founder of Citizen Engagement Lab. Director of Forecast the Facts campaign is also quite active in the OccupoopOakland movement also.
https://twitter.com/#!/mackabean
Well, it appears that Daniel Souweine, Twitter @mackabean Berkeley, CA , who claims the title of Co-founder of Citizen Engagement Lab. Director of Forecast the Facts campaign, is also very active in the OccupoopOakland movement.
Not that there is anything wrong with that, just goes to show how non-partisan he is.
https://twitter.com/#!/mackabean
“Citizen Engagement Laboratory is 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.”
Really???? If they are non partisan and they want to amplify the voices of underrepresented constituencies…. does that mean they are doing so an the behalf of the TEA PARTY as well?
I’d more likely suspect they only represent LEFT LEANING constituencies. If so, then the CEL lies and misrepresents itself in its’ mission statement as a “non-paritisan organization”.
crosspatch Fenton Communications seem to have their sticky little fingers all over lots of things that linked to ‘the cause’, given their certainly no charity you have to ask whose picking up the bill?
In the USA The believe that Global Warming is Primarily Caused By Humans” is hovering around 36% to 40% and has since 2008.
[snip . . OT . . .kbmod]
Mike I hope you and the other honest Meteorologists do not get caught in the cross hairs on this.
I received the same email in Providence. Mine came from “Frank Spadazzi”. I didn’t even bother responding. As for tracing the origin of the email, it came from an @forecasthefacts.org email address, but can you tell if it originated in Providence? My buddy also received it in Maine. He didn’t read it very closely and immediately sent an honest reply. You can expect to see him on the deniers list soon.
[snip . . try and use sense . . kbmod]
Who funds these fascist idiots?
“Forecast the Facts defines a denier as anyone who expressly rejects the overwhelming scientific consensus about climate change: that it is real, largely caused by humans, and already having profound impacts on our world. We only include meteorologists who currently report on the weather, whether as regular broadcasters on local or national news stations, or as guest commentators on cable media outlets. We track the views of meteorologists through their on-air statements, blog posts, social media activity, public appearances, interviews, and interactions with viewers.”
Shouldn’t that be ‘forget the facts’?