From the weather is not climate unless we say it is department comes this disturbing admission. From Tom Nelson, an illustration of the sort of defective thinking we see in some people who think climate and weather have no distinction:
WJZ meteorologist Bernadette Woods is leaving the CBS-owned station to join a non-profit firm in New Jersey focused on climate change, she said Wednesday night.
…
Woods described Climate Central as a “non-profit, non-lobbying company which deals with climate information, basically trying to educate the public” on climate change.
“There’s so much misinformation out there, that this company started in an effort to try and get good information to the public,” she said.”They are trying to connect climate with extreme weather, because that’s a lot of what’s happening. That’s really exciting for me, because I do love the science.”
Woods, a Penn State graduate with a B.S. in meteorology, earned her Television Seal of Approval through the American Meteorological Society in 2004.
…
“Oh, I’m a weather geek, no doubt about it,” she said laughing. “The bigger the storm, the better.”
[(Nelson:)Wait, so she laughs about tragic storms that kill and injure people, including children? To her, bigger storms are “better”?]
Like some storm chasers, some TV weather types get an adrenaline rush from severe weather events. I was once that way when I was young and stupid, until one day I was sent into the field to cover a tornado damage story, and I saw firsthand the loss of people hit by the storm.
As I’m sure Ms. Woods will eventually read this story, I direct her this history on technology, media, and severe weather to help her gain some perspective.
UPDATE: I erred in the original headline thinking she was a student of Dr. Mann. My information on the date Mann joined PSU (2004) was incorrect, it was actually 2005. Thus I have edited the headline and first sentence to correct my error – Anthony
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
She is just another television professional in this tiresome Age of Hype. If you can use the words ‘extreme’ and ‘climate’ while describing storms then you are good at hype. She might watch a lot of NBA as they are the very best at hype.
I’m sorry, but as an English speaker of english, this sentence says it all:
”They are trying to connect climate with extreme weather, because that’s a lot of what’s happening.”
I understand that America has taken the language and modified it over time and, unlike Prof. Higgins, I have no problem with that. But surely the phrasing above just screams “airhead” even in American? Does she also want to work with small animals and furry children?
“They are trying to connect climate with extreme weather, because that’s a lot of what’s happening. That’s really exciting for me, because I do love the science.”
So she admits they are still “trying” to make the connection between climate change and extreme weather but she already knows what’s happening. When you come to a definite conclusion before the facts are in, that’s not science. She doesn’t love science, she loves “the cause” and any propaganda that supports it.
Meteorologist Bernadette Woods says: “I am a climate cult member, watch me roar”
At least she came out of the closet. We all know what to expect from her; fomenting disaster and treating climate change as if it’s only a recent phenomenon, rather than a major factor in what helps spur adaptation and survival of the fittest.
Lovely. In a check of the links I had within my article that I linked to in my comment above, I discovered that a page for ex-founding director of Climate Central Berrien Moore’s bio is missing three critical words that I quoted in my article. It appears that Mr Moore or someone may have scrubbed those from his U of OK bio page…………… but they still appear in several other places, still to his detriment when it comes to the portrayal of Climate Central as an unbiased organization.
So, I placed an author’s update to my piece noting that problem. What part of “what has been seen on the internet cannot be unseen” does our AGW promoter friends not understand?
PBS NewsHour: Climate Central a “research organization”; Sorry, no. They advocate solving man-caused global warming [see 2/21/13 update ..] http://ow.ly/hVDB6
How’s that go?
“… it’s interesting when people die, give us dirty laundry…”
Good career move. Moving from meteorology, where you can make big mistakes and still keep your job, to climate science, where you can be surreal and still keep your job.
”They are trying to connect climate with extreme weather, because that’s a lot of what’s happening”.
The scandalous move from means to extremes hardly can be scientifically motivated because variance-increase does not follow from AGW, at most trivially as mean and variance are correlated in skewed distributions. Probably, the move has to do with hype. First, record setting comes from the world of sports and has no scientific value. It is based on arbitrary records and implies artificial dependence. Second, there are always extreme events somewhere. Walking behind them comes from TV programs like Tornado Watchers or programs about winners in a lottery. Third, people are (rightly) afraid of extremes making them the best items to scare them. It seems that this lady is at the right place at the right moment.
As this numb-skull moves to a non profit; so should the attention of Congress: All the CAGW activists are hiding their activities under the form of tax evasion called non profits, maybe it’s time to end them. How much money do they cost the American tax payer every year?
RCON; what a stupid argument to advance. As if she could care less about anything than her own career. Wake up, you’re living in a dream, a bad one.
The solar physicists were confidently predicting that the start of our drift towards a mini-ice age in the middle of this century would commence with a change in the sun cycle in 2007.
Right on cue we cooled as cycle 24 with it’s lower levels of sun spots ushered in more changeable weather…
It should therefore come as no surprise that with more cold fronts to meet up with the warm fronts that from time to time we would experience stormy weather.
Clearly this lady feels it is all to do with Earth’s number one plant food.
What a waste of an education.
Sound like Climate Central’s TV Mets program to “leverage the power of trusted messengers” is on track to roll out “first to 10 markets in 2012, 25 markets in 2013, and finally to 100 markets in the next five years, where we will be able to reach the majority of local news markets around country.”
Bernadette must have answered the ad for “on-camera weathercaster or producer with AMS seal…. who is passionate about communicating …. how weather and climate are connected.”
http://www.climatecentral.org/what-we-do/jobs/
Still more positions open for Communications Director to:
“Develop and implement a strategic positioning plan for the organization to build, grow, and protect the Climate Central brand.”
“Build and maintain relationships with key reporters, producers, bloggers and writers, with a strong emphasis on generating local media coverage of Climate Central content around the nation.”
Co-founder, NOAA Director Jane Lubchenco must be proud at the growth of this government and foundation funded organization on its mission to to “…make Americans feel the power of what’s really happening to the climate” ..objectively speaking, that is.
http://ccimgs.s3.amazonaws.com/HeatIsOnReport.pdf
they are trying to connect climate with extreme weather
**********************************************************
key phrase people, trying to connect.
these people bug me.
DavidG says:
RCON; what a stupid argument to advance. As if she could care less about anything than her own career. Wake up, you’re living in a dream, a bad one.
DavidG, you really missed the point of my argument. The point is not that she holds or doesn’t hold a moral high-ground for wanting to focus her attention away from day-to-day weather to more extreme weather events; the point is that she is not some destruction loving sadist for doing so.
Perhaps you can wrap your head around this analogy more easily. Let’s say there is a general practitioner that leaves his job to study infectious diseases. When asked why, the person says “Because I just find studying infectious diseases fascinating ! The more deadly, the better!” It should be obvious that by “better” they mean “interesting” and that they certainly don’t mean that they relish in the fact that people die from these diseases.
With any profession, people are usually attracted to the more extreme situations in the profession, as they find the “norm” is less interesting to study. Furthermore, the reason for this increase in interest is usually due to the fact that there is a greater ability to contribute positively to society when studying a subject that is more destructive to it.
Now your resentment to this is based on you not agreeing that this career change with have a positive effect on society. That’s fine. However, what is not ok, is the attempt to demonize this individual by deliberately misrepresenting her statements. This was my point, which was repeated several times in the comments by other people.
And Anthony, although I appreciate you removing the reference to Mann, you went from an erroneous title to a slanderous one, that’s not much of an improvement. You know perfectly well what she meant by her comment and yet you change the title to that, put in the emphasis and included Nelsons quote, in an attempt to discredit her.
I don’t contest anything else in the article but you don’t have to use the smear tactics. I know there will be a flood of posts saying the other side does it as well and I would agree with that. However, it’s just as ugly and unnecessary when either side engages in this sort of behaviour, especially when it’s directed towards someone who is a relatively minor player in the debate. She doesn’t deserve this treatment and I can’t believe I’m being attacked by people like DavidG for thinking so…
Bernadette Woods..Who??
They are trying to connect climate to extreme weather….
They are saying climate and extreme weather are the same
To myron: .-. .-. -.. . -. …– -.– … .-.-.
Alfred
There is a fallacy about extreme weather that makes the MSM meme believable to low-information voters. People only remember the weather that they experience. In this the Information Age, we know so much more about the world, that untrained minds cannot shake off anecdotal evidence. These people do not know that the STATISTICAL EVIDENCE is the only issue, and do not even know when they are being fed a pack of lies. Go, Bernie, feed the lies, you have a big future….
“There’s so much misinformation out there, that this company started in an effort to try and get good information to the public,”
Starting a company, with what money?
I suggest that Following The Money would be instructive here.
“Woods described Climate Central as a “non-profit, non-lobbying company which deals with climate information…”
*
Has this been checked for accuracy? If they’re yelling “non-profit, non-lobbying,” they are probably the exact opposite – especially as they already are with “climate information”.
Joe says:
February 21, 2013 at 9:58 am
“I’m sorry, but as an English speaker of english, this sentence says it all:
”They are trying to connect climate with extreme weather, because that’s a lot of what’s happening.”
I understand that America has taken the language and modified it over time and, unlike Prof. Higgins, I have no problem with that. But surely the phrasing above just screams “airhead” even in American? Does she also want to work with small animals and furry children?”
============================================================
You ROCK, Joe! ;o)
P.S. You left out world peas and dolphins.
Yup.. 😉
I agree with her though, that big storms are exciting to watch, but I doubt she wants any associated destruction.
Where I think all of us agree, is that “climate” in general, doesn’t specify local, regional, national, hemispheric or global. Extreme weather is usually dictated by local or regional conditions. The average of which becomes the climate in the area. Considering what Mt. Everest suffers every year, you can’t say that extreme weather is something new there at all. In fact, zero wind and sunshine on Everest is somewhat rare.
She’s chasing unicorn farts because the media and associated warmist sites won’t present her with the historic information required.
Forget the article…..read the comments!!!
from ssabob at 5:01 PM February 21, 2013
If humans can deforest and overuse large expanses of the earth’s land mass, drive many species to extinction, clog and poison rivers and lakes, exhaust fresh water supplies, overfish the seas, darken daytime sky, and light the night sky, how can you possibly believe they have no long-term net effect on climate? We live in an aquarium with too many inhabitants, too much light, and a clogged filter — yet some far too many will refuse to see it until it is beyond repair. Sadly, they choose to stick their head in the sand. We have lots of research, but very little common sense.
“The only thing new under the sun is the history you haven’t read.”
Sorry, but this blog is going downhill greatly. It is becoming a nonstop bashing toward anyone that believes in man made global warming. You throw a fit over that “D word” you hate so much, but you have no problem turning this woman into some kind of big villain while have very little reason for doing so. This is nothing more than a senseless attack piece.