(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
I really think it’s important to distinguish between CAGW and AGW and CC. I think most scientists agree that humans influence the climate. It makes sense. What most scientists do no agree with is whether the human induced climate change will eventually end up being catastrophic. The reason for this is that in order for climate change to be catastrophic, it requires positive feedbacks. Feedbacks are very poorly understood. In the climate models, the feedbacks are positive. They have to be in order for anthropogenic global warming to be catastrophic. It is more likely that in nature and, therefore, what will actually happen is there will be negative feedbacks dampening anthropogenic induced warming. In addition, there will be other natural factors that will have both warming and cooling effects that when combined with AGW will produce climate change (CC). Based upon levels of CO2 and temperature over geologic time, it does not appear that feedbacks are positive (positive feedbacks are far less common than negative feedbacks in nature which is what creates a relative stability in nature), as it appears there have been periods when both CO2 and temperature have been higher than today but the earth did not have runaway warming; in fact; such periods were eventually followed by ice ages. For those interested in viewing a chart of CO2 and temperatures over geologic time go to http://www.geocraft.com/wvfossils/carboniferous-climate.html. It is really important not to fall into a trap. CO2 does raise temperatures as it is a greenhouse gas, but water is also a greenhouse gas more powerful and more abundant than CO2, but it is not known whether the effects of clouds, and what type of clouds, create positive (as in the models) feedback or negative feedbacks. This is one of the most important but also the one of the least understood issues in the theory of CAGW. I like to use the term “It’s the Feedbacks Stupid”. Th alarmists conflate the three. There has been GW in the 20th century. There has been AGW in the 20th century. There seems to have been a natural cooling during the 21st century offsetting the AGW. That there will every be CAGW, I highly doubt it because I suspect the feedbacks will be negative and have a dampening effect. The anthropogenic warming mitigation policies advanced by the warmists are only worth their horrendous cost is CAGW is highly likely, which in my opinion it is not.
JJ says:
March 23, 2012 at 9:48 am
I know that the American Meteorological Society says that human-induced climate change is occurring and is largely created by humans.
The stunning power of warmist logic.
——————————-
Who knew? So, they think it’s humans who create human-induced climate change.
Thank you Mike for this post, I was wondering if we would ever see this come to pass or not. I do not know if the meteorologist in my area believe or not, do not care, just want them to be right about the weather.
One has to wonder whether this might actually be another Univ. of Illinois masters student’s survey or an eighth graders social studies project. I found the following mind boggling.
“I know that the American Meteorological Society says that human-induced climate change is occurring and is largely created by humans.”
Used to be you could blame it on the dog if there was some extra methane around and the smell cleared the room. Now human-induced climate change has been largely attributed to… gasp… the horrors …..Humans?? I never would have guessed that! O.K. So it’s largely humans responsible for human induced climate change. Hmmmmm, I wonder what else is responsible. Somebody inform the Climate Rapid Response Team ASAP!! /sarc
It is fully understandable why the warmista side thinks they have a communication problem. It is because they do.
Anonmoose — thanks for the link. All of the meteorologist in my area will be getting the form letter from viewer “Bogus Alarmist”
They have a page for comments. Here’s mine …
We’ll see if I get a reply.
w.
From Willis Eschenbach on March 23, 2012 at 11:59 pm:
Did you use your real name? You likely made the “first to the camps” list years ago, so they have you set for “auto-delete”.
JFD Says: “The only way I see to combat propaganda is to tell the true story any time it is obvious that weather is acting in an unpredicted manner. It need not be told in a combative manner but just a few simple words to keep the truth before the general public.”
As I explained to my students the other day on a black board. I made a small dot and called it the truth; I then drew a 100mm circle and called it the lie. I then said that the truth always remains the same size; but the lie will require the circle to grow larger and larger and that the size of that circle can continue and continue until it is broken by the truth. The truth is easy, the lie is not.
Here is my first draft on how I would answer this zombie:
Alleged Viewer—-As someone who studies these things, I was hoping to get your opinion.
JK—– From your studies, what evidence convinced you that it is a serious enough issue to send your email to me?
Alleged Viewer—- 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.
JK—– Do you believe “climate change is a factor in all of this”? If so, why?
Alleged Viewer—- I know that the American Meteorological Society says that human-induced climate change is occurring and is largely created by humans.
JK—– Do you think they are correct? Why?
Alleged Viewer—- 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.
JK—– Do you consider these reports credible? How have you researched their credibility?
Alleged Viewer—- Do you agree with the AMS’ position?
JK—– Please tell me why, or why not, I should agree?
Alleged Viewer—- Do you think climate change is happening?
JK—– Obviously the climate has changed since the last ice age. And since the more recent “little ice age”.
Alleged Viewer—- And do you think it will have an impact on weather in A___?
JK—– The climate in A_____ has been ……….. in the last ……….. years.
The Olympic Games start in the UK in August? How much extra CO2 will be generated with all those hundreds of heavy breathers [40k PPM] over two weeks? Save the planet – ban the Olympics. Phil Jones will be able to record a Huge Increase in Global Temperature of at least 1 Ten thousandth of a degree C.
Looky looky what I have found on the Internet:
” From: “Mr. John Lopez” (may be fake)
Reply-To:
Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 18:22:01 +0100
Subject: Re: Federal Reserve Bank of New York ..
Federal Reserve Bank of New York .
33 Liberty St New York, 10038, USA
Attention Eduardo Guglielmino,
I am John Lopez; 50 years old, I am working with printing and minting unit of Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Sometime ago two silver metar boxes was intercepted by the US customs at the JFK airport and brought to the Federal Reserve Bank, The boxes contained $100 bills to the amount of $21million and all were stamped.
I was mandated to examine the boxes and upon my examination; I found out that the first and second $100 bills were only stamped; it was actually brought in from Africa, apparently to deceive the US customs.
I used a diluted chemical to clean up the stamped and found the $100 bills perfect. My purpose of contacting you is that I found your information underneath of one the boxes as the beneficiary.
Further details would be giving upon your response to this message
Thanks
John Lopez
”
http://www.419scam.org/emails/2010-05/19/01073332.97.htm
So these are the warmists tactics now…
When the law is against you, argue the facts. When the facts are against you, argue the law.
When both are against you, attack the plaintiff. – R.Rinkle
The CAGW’s are taking a page from the legal arena with the “law” being their dogma on global warming. Obviously, they are very,very afraid.
Its a form of MCarthyism in reverse if you get my meaning. If you are “exposed” as being a skeptic, it doesn’t mean you are a careful scientist who likes to keep track of the real facts, it means you couldn’t possibly be fit to do your job. Thankfully these people don’t get to rule the country, at least, not yet.
But …. but …. I thought Gorgaphiles said meteorologist weren’t real “climate scientist” so if any of them disagreed with “The Consensus” what they said didn’t matter. Why would what a meteorologist says matter to them now?
philincalifornia says:
March 23, 2012 at 10:17 am
JJ says:
March 23, 2012 at 9:48 am
I know that the American Meteorological Society says that human-induced climate change is occurring and is largely created by humans.
The stunning power of warmist logic
——————————–
Only largely though. So there must be some residual of human-induced climate change caused by something other than humans. Zombies ??
================================================
Zombies? Nahh… It’s those pesky Chicago voters that keep voting long after they are dead. Who knew they had such a large effect on climate?
KnR says:
March 23, 2012 at 11:59 am
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?
I thought Trevor FitzGibbon/Fenton Communications rang a bell. FitzGibbon’s the PR flak for Bradley Manning, of Wikileaks notoriety.
Not his lawyer, his Public Relations ex-spurt.
Trev’s the one who howled like a banshee (in four separate press releases) that Manning was being tortured by being forced to sleep with only a blanket for protection in his air-conditioned cell — and never mentioned that Manning’s jammies were confiscated because he’d threatened to use them to hang himself…
They know that meteorologists know that climate is global weather over a longer period of time … They also know that meteorologists know that the weather is very difficult to predict longer than five days … Therefore, meteorologists are a threat to them, as they have not embraced the The AGW-tales ….
As most meteorologists would not join the the agenda, a smear campaign is preferable. Warmistas just need to know who they will attack, with a little help of this “study” …
I am beginning to find that it is a pattern that is beings followed by much of the climate skeptic movement as a whole. Let me illustrate:
——–
Errr this article.
Yet one more out of 50 million attempts to slime people who do not agree with what Gleick did.
Let’s compare the positions of the 2 sides.
1. Gleick admits he made a mistake. Its maybe 50:50 on his approval on the CAGW side.
2. The Climategate guy has never owned up. 100% approval on the climate skeptic side.
So morality-wise you guys don’t have a leg to stand on. So please give up on the holier than thou attitude.
I then invited him down to the TV station where we could have a great talk about it.
————
Come into my larder said the spider to the fly.
… as when the hunter becomes the hunted .
LazyT you are as hopelessly clueless as sherriq. You don’t know that Phil Jones himself didn’t post the Climategate emails. It was clearly an inside job, not a theft like Gleick’s illegal phishing. There is a huge difference between stealing the property of others, and posting information that was paid for by the public. I say Jones did it. Prove me wrong.
You exemplify the fact that the alarmist cult has no morals. You don’t know right from wrong.
I don’t like what Forecast the Facts appears to be doing, the phrase chilling comes to mind. But you haven’t quite proved the fakery promised in the headline, there could be other reasons why Mr Lopez hasnt got back to you. But what about other broadcast meteorologists ? Has Mr Lopez written from other addresses to other TV stations around the US ?
I get a bit of alarm bells. This is not just spam, it’s phishing. Why? So that they can obtain a list of denier weathermen and attack them. Fenton Fitzgibbon is now attacking Heartland’s donors, now that the donor list is public thanks to Gleick. As David Ross notes at 12.22 and it bears repeating and highlighting):
On the up side, I am amused at their name. Fitz=illegitimate son, bastard. Gibbon=monkey.
Peter Gleick to speak at Oxford – as far as I know, this is going ahead:
The Human Right to Water, lecture by Peter Gleick
By Oxford Amnesty Lectures
Tuesday, 24 April 2012, 17:30 until 18:30
The Gulbenkian Lecture Theatre, St Cross Building, Manor Road, Oxford OX1 3TU.
Protect the Human: Protect the Planet, Oxford Amnesty Lectures 2012
You can verify this at:
http://www.oxford-amnesty-lectures.org/index.php?p=Lectures
And this is how you take a crankism minority point of view and spin it into a “we are the 97%”.
robo-letters …who’d think!