Greg Fishel, WRAL says on his Facebook page
PUT UP OR SHUT UP
You know everybody reaches their breaking point and quite frankly I have reached mine with the folks who post all over the internet about the scientific fallacies of man induced climate change. All of them are guest bloggers or essayists. None of this stuff has ever been published in a peer reviewed atmospheric science or climate journal. But we live in an age today where higher education and research are no longer respected. Heck, think of all the money my parents wasted on my education when I could have waited for the age of twitter and Facebook and declared myself as an expert in the field of my choice. That’s sarcasm to illustrate asininity. But wait! Let’s say one of these guest essayers is a modern day Galileo, and has that critical piece to the puzzle that no other scientist has. Then they should submit their findings to one of the American Meteorological Society’s peer reviewed journals for publication. If they are rejected, and the author feels unfairly, then make public each and every one of the reviewers’ comments for the entire world to see. If there is bias and corruption in the peer review process, everyone needs to know about it so this flawed process can be halted and corrected. But ya know what? I doubt any of these folks has the guts to do this, and they’ll continue on with their pathetic excuse for science education. So prove me wrong bloggers and essayists. Submit your work the way real scientists do, and see where it takes you. Uncover that bias and corruption you’re so convinced is present. If you end up being correct, society will owe you a huge debt of gratitude. If you’re wrong, stop muddying the scientific waters with ideological trash.
Wow, I guess he doesn’t read beyond the AMS/BAMS much, because there are thousands of peer reviewed papers that question the claims of [dangerous] climate change.
Let’s help him out.
Update: Added from comments, via “Aphan”
No Tricks Zone has a list I like to use for recent papers published:
248 skeptical, PEER REVIEWED and PUBLISHED papers in 2014
282 skeptical, PEER REVIEWED and PUBLISHED papers in 2015
500 skeptical, PEER REVIEWED and PUBLISHED papers in 2016
http://notrickszone.com/248-skeptical-papers-from-2014/#sthash.UY4U91NX.dpbs
This guy lives in a treehouse?
Well, he does appear to be a bit of a birdbrain now doesn’t he? The question is: “Can he point to a single study that rejects the null hypothesis that the increase in temperature during the 20th century was naturally caused.” Unless and until he can, I suggest that he is the one who has to put up or shut up.
+1 Exactly. the climate alarmists have made failed prediction (“projection”) after failed prediction. The ones that need to “put up or shut up” are the ones claiming we need to destroy our economies on the backs of their scare stories not the ones saying “wait a minute, that doesn’t add up”.
As for “peer review” being the be all and end all, may I refer the Viking hatted one to “The conceptual penis as a social construct” ?
I think Tucker Carlson should put him on to debate with Dr. Christy and Joe Bastardi.
It’s worse than that, shrnfr.
Richard Lindzen has published on how critical scientists are attacked and how the literature is censored to disallow AGW-critical papers from being published. Arxiv paper here.
The UEA emails evidenced Phil Jones and Kevin Trenberth conspiring to to exactly that — censor out critical papers. The Chris de Frietas episode an object example.
And then this twit comes along and demands peer-reviewed papers with critical content.
The guy exemplifies the self-righteous mindlessness that permeates the field.
The pathology is so wide-spread among the eco-greens, that one wonders whether the phenomenon is that there is a population of the reflexively self-righteous who look for some cause to mindlessly support, or whether there are the mindless who are suckers for opportunistic self-righteous indulgence.
Which causes what: mindlessness or self-righteousness; it’s the new chicken-or-egg problem.
Hi Mod — apparently my comment is stuck in spam purgatory, if it could be rescued please. 🙂 Please feel free to delete this request.
Hi, Pat (at 2:47pm) — I would suggest (I’m a Spam Bin veteran….) spelling out “moderat – r” and asking again. That way, your request will get into regular (as opposed to the Bermuda Triangle type) “moderation.” This is a more likely means of getting a mod to help (I think). Hope your comment makes it out! What you have to say is always worthwhile!
Just another one of Gullible’s Yahoos
Thanks Janice. 🙂
Moderator, can you please remove my post from the heart of darkest spamness? And please delete my two requests? 🙂 Thanks.
[Nothing in the queues right now now. .mod]
“the Viking hatted one”
The Vikings didn’t actually wear hats with horns on. That is a Hollywood fantasy. I certainly hope his knowledge of meteorology is a lot better than his knowledge of history.
The Vikings didn’t have plastic, either.
John Endicott
Here is another extract from a peer reviewed Social Justice Jihadist Global Warmer twat.
http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/2017/05/insights-into-islam-and-terror-part-two-what-can-the-world-learn-from-waleed-alys-phd.html
Clearly plagiarised from the ‘Conceptual Penis’.
Peer Reviewed means approved by people of like mind. Like the National Academies of Science.
There aren’t any qualifications for membership; well other than being recommended by people who tend to agree with you. They do have mavericks who somehow sneak in through their filters, and they even allow dissenting opinion.
But dissenting view points do not go into their final reports to The Congress or the president. They issue only a majority (AKA consensus) report, with the points they all agree on, and NO minority report is ever issued.
Yes Peer review is a good way to getting to a consensus.; the best thinking of your friends.
G
Hivemind,
Hollywood is guilty of many sins and transgressions, but you can’t pin the mythical horned Viking helmet on us. The first perpetrator of this myth was 19th century Scandinavian artist Gustav Malmström (1829-1901).
By contrast, here is Hollywood:
http://c8.alamy.com/comp/BKBWMJ/the-vikings-1958-tony-curtis-kirk-douglas-vik-012-BKBWMJ.jpg
The History Channel’s Vikings series gets it all wrong by using practically no helmets or body armor, being more interested in showcasing the characters’ tattoos and physiques.
Then gets it even more wrong with their Anglo-Saxon opponents’ armor, equipment and tactics. The anachronistic series gives the English a cavalry arm, equipped with French Renaissance style helmets.
In fact, the Saxons were almost entirely a heavy infantry force, using ponies only for transportation to the battlefield, not for shock action on it, and lacking light infantry, such as archers. Their heavy infantry was the best in the world, but alone insufficient to withstand the modern, combined arms force of the Normans in 1066. But just barely. Had Harold not taken an arrow in the eye at Hastings, we might still be speaking a more purely Germanic English.
Why does anyone bother paying a bit of attention to ANYTHING some asshat posts on Facebook or Twitter? Anyone can post any blather, making sense or not; ever see the comment sections following every news item? Truly a tower of babble! Ignore, ignore, ignore and give these people’s crap no daylight.
Ole Greg is the leading Meteorologist at WRAL TV. He has always been a bit on the dingy side. He is part of the Church of man made global warming. No one that I know really takes anything he says seriously.
Much to everyone’s dismay and relatively few have the knowledge of it, most media decide what they will run on a daily basis by the number of “hits” generated on Facebook and Twitter. Media organizations use them as the metric for what is “popular” and what will drive traffic to their site. So while I agree with anyone that proclaims that Facebook and Twitter are largely useless platforms for communication of anything scientific they are what drives the content of what the media puts out and as such are entirely too relevant. This is true of the old school print media (now largely web based electronic) or traditional or nontraditional electronic media. Blech.
I quit posting at Facebook,since they are incredibly ignorant and rude.
I do agree with one of his comments. The money his parents spent on his higher education was most definitely a waste.
He appears to live in Cary, NC near Chapel Hill, a bastion of progressive visceral thinking.
Cary is a vast, vast suburb, on the WSW side of Raleigh. Cary is the home of NC’s wealthiest software entrepreneur. It leans Democrat, so it is to the left of the State as a whole, but it’s not crazy leftist like Chapel Hill / Carrboro, though both Cary and Chapel Hill / Carrboro are part of the “Research Triangle” / “Raleigh-Durham” media market.
What has happened to the Research Triangle area (politically) is a tragedy. As a youngster living just to the southeast of there in the late 60s, they were sane, down to earth people. It has now morphed into a real-life Bizarro World cartoon. Very sad.
I find it amusing that he wears a Viking helmet while saying what he says – especially since the period of time that the Vikings farmed Greenland is enough to bring into question what his peer reviewed papers claim about today being the hottest period ever.
Yes it’s a surreal thought – digging potatoes 🥔 on Greenland for his day job and in the evening facebooking about climate change before getting drunk with the locals and shouting about Odin and Vallhalla.
So he’s a weatherman.
I can go outside and hold up a wet finger to find out the weather.
Thunderstorms have a way of making themselves known both visually and orally, so that’s no biggie.
So he has NO climate credentials. What is his bibliography of published peer reviewed climate papers. (authored by HIM of course. ??
Basically that’s what talking heads are.
G
“How the Social Construction of the Penis Affects Climate Change”? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMv8-uPqZ5M
http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/conceptual-penis-social-contruct-sokal-style-hoax-on-gender-studies/
he’s using evil electrical lights using evil electricity from evil coal……
He lost me at the shit eating grin
He lost ME at the Viking helmet — a clear sign of a clown, to whom the only tenable response is laughter.
… and as for “helping him out”, … well, he might be beyond help, given his preference for swimming in shallow water.
But, just in case, my first tip would be, “Learn to swim in deeper water”, like the writings of John Christy, Roy Spencer, Richard Lindzen, Judith Curry, and others, who rank a tad above the bloggers over whom he takes such self anointing pride in fermenting.
Almost as laughable as –
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-lbw90JPZq6Q/U3B9roVxLAI/AAAAAAAABJ4/swCjiaMzqFk/s1600/Herr+Cook.gif
Vikings didn’t have cow horns on their helmets. That’s a moron hat.
Clown?? You mean there’s another Bill Nye?
BCBill: In keeping with the rules of warmists, the fact that this person is sporting a myth for a hat and is not educated enough to know it or to care (or both), he should be ignored. Yes, that’s a strawman argument, but it’s what every good troll using the Troll Manual does. You hear it over and over and over. So, feel free to ignore this person based on their own standards for belief.
IMO local newscasters tend to be attention whores.
Well a crash helmet like that looks ever so much better on Brunhilde, than it does on him.
And she sings a whole lot better than he does.
G
His look is exactly the same as my older brother’s. My brother has been a dingbat the whole of his 71 years.
that question the claims of “anthropogenic” climate change.
As is usual, it’s the “peer review” canard. Peer review isn’t science or the scientific method. Independent replication is.
Especially when the gate keepers abuse the peer review process to make sure that no paper that disagrees with them gets published.
+97
That is a very good idea. I suggest that Fishel contact the editors of all the peer reviewed journals in his field, asking them to provide public statements as to why journals do not make all the review comments public. It could be really enlightening for him.
The reason I mention this is that I once threatened to make public the extremely shoddy peer reviews I received on a publication I submitted in my field. The editor was very opposed to the concept and offered both threats and possible rewards to discourage any such transparency.
Old joke: A judge tells a suspect (who’s pleading innocent) that he has the right to a trial, to be judged either by a jury of his peers or else by the judge himself.
The suspect asks, ‘what’s a peer’. The judge responds, ‘it’s people just like you.’
The suspect says, ‘I’ll take my chances with you, your honor. I don’t want to be tried by a bunch of criminals.’
+1
Circle jerk review would definitely be more appropriate terminology.
I reviewed a few papers in the late 1970’s when I was doing basic research.
I was not asked to validate conclusions. I was only asked to identify errors and verify that the work was suitable for publication.
I never found reason to oppose any publication and I never offered any opinion on the author’s work.
I recall one paper was not published but I was never informed as to the reason – caused me to question what, if anything, I had overlooked.
40 years ago. Perhaps peer review has changed; So many other things have.
No Name Guy
I think your comment needs repeating. Replication is the gold standard of science. If a work cannot be independently replicated, whether due to a lack of a clear description of what was done or how, or because the claims and conclusions are in error, matters not. If it cannot be replicated, it is not acceptable as a basis for a validated scientific claim.
Given the healthy turmoil in the health field over this issue, the same exposure should be given to climate studies, even those which are purely speculative such as what the climate will be like in 100 years time.
The climate always has changes. I am tired of the ‘climate change’ being code for ‘global warming.’
+ 1,000
No Trick Zone has a list I like to use for recent papers published:
248 skeptical, PEER REVIEWED and PUBLISHED papers in 2014
282 skeptical, PEER REVIEWED and PUBLISHED papers in 2015
500 skeptical, PEER REVIEWED and PUBLISHED papers in 2016
http://notrickszone.com/248-skeptical-papers-from-2014/#sthash.UY4U91NX.dpbs
On top of that list from NoTricksZone, is another one from Popular Technology site with many more older published science papers:
1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
Oh I see that Anthony already pointed it out.
Here is another list that at least indirectly also show significant skepticism on AGW conjecture claims:
Global Warming Petition Project
http://www.petitionproject.org/
Here is another group:
CO2 Science
http://www.co2science.org/
Those papers are for the most part irrelevant. And certainly none of them appear to refute or
argue against the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, or that humans are changing the climate.
Most of them appear to either try and reconstruct and understand past climates or to quantify the size of the natural climate variability. Both of which are important but do not undermine the case for human
caused climate change in anyway.
There is no scientific case human-caused climate change.
Geronimo,
You read over 1,000 papers in one afternoon? Good for you.
Obviously your post caters to the illogical and uninformed assumption that every “skeptic” believes exactly the same two (or three) things:
1. CO2 is not a “greenhouse gas”
2. That humans can’t possibly affect the climate…ever
3. That the climate is not changing/has not changed over the past two hundred years
I’ve met the rare person that might believe one of those things to some degree, but never anyone who believes them all. What MOST skeptics believe is that it is currently impossible to measure/quantify/determine in any accurate way IF or HOW MUCH of the changes over the past century are the result of human activity. EVERY study that focuses on natural factors that affect the climate is one step closer to establishing FACTS over foolishness.
Oh, and your opinion that those papers are irrelevant….is irrelevant.
“Germinio May 23, 2017 at 1:45 pm
Those papers are for the most part irrelevant. And certainly none of them appear to refute or
argue against the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, or that humans are changing the climate.”
Perhaps, but then, how many papers can you list that show conclusively, with observable data, that human CO2 emissions are having more than a negligible, but measureable, warming effect on the atmosphere?
If he wants bias and corruption, he needs to look at the history of the M&M response to MBH98. But of course, if he finds that he can’t answer any critique, then he’ll just say that it was paid for by big oil or that this single point may be wrong but there are hundreds of other proofs supporting climate change, or something…
None of this stuff has ever been published in a peer reviewed atmospheric science or climate journal.
…and in over 100 years you haven’t been able to prove your agenda either
What a maroon.
Did the plastic viking helmet give him away?
I think it was when he started singing “Kill the Wabbit.” Haha.
I can look past that. For me it’s the fact that he uses Facebook
“Heck, think of all the money my parents wasted on my education”
He sure got that right!
Bruce Cobb —
Bugs Bunny, in reference to one of his defeated adversaries would say, “What a maroon!”
The origin of this phrase has been debated with much hand wringing from the left deciphering it as racist. I recently learned that in the old NHL one of the early teams (1924 to 1938) was called “The Montreal Maroons”. They won the Stanley Cup twice during the time of their existence.
I am just adding to the word fun.
Eugene WR Gallun
If the budget the Trump administration just made public goes through,
the EPA budget reduction should greatly reduce or eliminate the “Pay
For Pay” AGW echo chamber.
The effect will be fun to watch.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/05/22/white-house-budget-cuts-entitlements-1-7-trillion-slashes-epa-30/
HaH! The budget needs to first get past Ryan in the House and then McCain/Graham/Collins in the Senate. Fat chance. They all hate Trump and will throw everything in the way of anything he wants to do.
I repeated my post here on his Facebook page seconds ago. Any bets on how long it stays there? I say everyone should post links to lists of papers there, screen capture it, and let’s see if he puts up or shuts up?
I couldn’t find your post. I must be too late. Found a couple of commenters that refuted his ‘facts’, but not yours.
…Copied your post above and sent it…45 seconds it was gone…..LOL
…Maybe I should not have edited his picture and added the “DUNCE” cap ?
For those who posted a link to notrickszone’s list they are all apparently still up, unless when I follow the link to his Facebook page it’s going to an old cached version.
The nitwit does not want to have a real discussion. We will still insist on real evidence instead of far-left drivel. Fishel ignores published scientists who are skeptics. So-called Climate Science has become the most politicized endeavor going. The classical rules of the scientific method do not apply with politicized Climate Science.
“The nitwit does not want to have a real discussion. We will still insist on real evidence instead of far-left drivel. Fishel ignores published scientists who are skeptics.”
What he really ignores is it is not up to skeptics to prove anything. It is up to those speculating that human-introduced CO2 causes the Earth’s climate to change, to do the proving. Just assuming something is true, as this meteorologist does, doesn’t make it so. He wants skeptics to disprove his presumption.
Greg Fischel is an obvious science d*n**r! He is ASKING for people to disprove accepted science! He MUST be in the pay of Big Oil! If he wants to see that there is no corruption in Climate Science he should be hounded from his position just like Philippe Verdier was. That will show him that there is no bias here – no bias towards scepticism at all….
This ‘weather man’ obviously doesn’t live in the cold Northeast. This is one of the coldest springs I can recall except for the Pinatubo volcano event.
He would just call that weather.
As far as I can tell, no matter how much cold weather there is worldwide, the anomaly from the global average temperature will NEVER be affected by those low temperatures. No matter how much snow falls in the desert, how many cherry blossoms freeze, how many corn crops are destroyed by late frosts, etc, there will always be sufficient hot areas to keep the average from EVER dipping in the negative direction. This is a fascinating characteristic of global warming. I have not run across an average that could never be moved into the opposite direction until global warming. Data will always be found or created to keep the average of the globe HOT. Must be new math……
I’d put him in an open boat and send him out to sea so that he can experience real temperatures. I was the coldest I’ve ever been in the NH in May, just last week, as we crossed the English Channel.
Sara, the coldest I have ever been was a night spent down in a half-full rice paddy in Vietnam.
Dave, thank you for your service.
De nada; I was drafted.
It’s been markedly cooler than any spring I can recall during my 55 years here in central Texas.
Ditto to that Myron–infact ,cranked up a space heater the other night a bit north of central texas, but still south of I-20
We’re having problems in Jersey County, Illinois with corn not germinating due to cold spells and torrential rains. Looking for some sunny weather to replant before time runs out and we have to put in beans.
I still have the furnace running. I live in the Midwest north of Chicago, 3 miles west of Lake Michigan. I’ve been putting out some birdfood, but more importantly, I’ve put out dried mealworms because there are few if any bugs out. My vian visitors are redwinged blackbirds, brownheaded cowbirds, and grackles, and they are all looking for food for the kids. Too much rain is drowning earthworms and burrowing insects. I haven’t seen butterflies or moths yet. Too chilly. But my radishes are growing!
Same thing happened last year. I turned the furnace off by July 1st. We may be having a spell of several years of cooler than usual spring weather, and nothing else, BUT I keep an eye on something besides just thermometers. Birds, bugs and blossoms are just as important as thermometers and average mean temperatures.
And no: no bees yet, but that may change.
This TV weatherman? I think he’s just dancing and pointing at himself, sticking his oar into the waters of contention, and not much else.
I’ve lived in Raleigh since 1974 and watched Greg Fischel on Channel 5 here since he first showed up in the 80’s. Early on he couldn’t weather forecast his way out of a paper bag. Making one outrageous forecast after another, especially on snow. They have since moved to the “models” forecasting the weather cause it looks high tech and the TV station bought the graphics forecast, and has many a day forecast warm and its cold or forecast cold and its warm. Based on his track record of forecasting, I wouldn’t put much into what else he believes.
I think he was a classmate of Joe Bastardi at PSU however. Guess something didn’t rub off.
Bastardis of a feather hang out together. 🙂
A 2011 paper by George Mason researchers concluded that only 19% of TV meteorologists believe that man-made global warming is significant and harmful. Mr. Fischel is one of those 19% it seems. I’ll stick with the other 81% and with experts such as Lindzen, Curry, and many many others.
I live in Durham, NC – so I know Greg Fischel well from his many years as the chief meteorologist for WRAL. Only in the past two to three years has he publicly climbed aboard the Irritable Climate Syndrome Express. Climate change has been real ever since our planet was formed out of the primordial dust. Unlike Greg, I have done peer-reviewed atmospheric chemistry research back in the late 1980’s while I was a post-doc at the University of Florida. I’m firmly in DHR’s camp on this…
“Irritable Climate Syndrome”
^^^^^
This
too funny
Maybe Mr. Fischel can read up on atmospheric physics from Dr. Salby’s textbook, which provides an antidote to climate fears such as his. It takes some reading and thinking but does well to overcome the myopic and lopsided distortions from alarmists.
He can start with this introduction:
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2016/06/18/fearless-physics-from-dr-salby/
Yes, somebody should notify his parents they wasted money on trying to educate this guy. There are numerous documented cases of flawed peer review and he’s clueless about them. He’d rather rant in ignorance on FB than do the research necessary to find and evaluate the claims. Pitiful.
If they got him out of the house for good, not necessarily wasted money.
The only help he could get is to get a refund on his college education. Apparently he learned nothing there. Even in high school where science is taught, they teach you about how the process works. Skeptics have nothing to prove. He is the one that has to put up or shut up. And while papers are important, strangely none of them have disproved the null hypothesis yet.
All he has done is proven he wasted all that money on college. And the worst part is, it was not HIS money, but once again, OPM. I guess he did prove one thing. Free college is a waste of time and OPM.
Refund??
No, recind!
So, during the past couple days, WUWT has exposed us to a climate scientist dressed as a cowboy and a climate-skeptic critic dressed as a Viking.
… and we are supposed to take these guys seriously?!
I guess consensus science now requires you to dress up in costume to make a point. Of course, I would have to check the consensus on that.
Over the last few years there have also climate “scientists” who dressed up as a super hero and another as an SS officer.
Such behavior of AGW alarmists does raise questions about their emotional maturity and how they view themselves compared to the ‘simple folks.’ Perhaps they suffer (not so very silently) with some kind of hero complex.
NEWS: there is a nationwide shortage of propeller beanies/s
Here’s the answer (even has a little Mann in it)!
We can ask them to dress as a clown.
Yeah, but the point of dressing up it to dress up as something you aren’t. 🙂
emsnews,
not to be pedantic, but you spelled “assclown” wrong. 🙂
https://youtu.be/xhTQMuhOB8E
Phil R,
I laughed so hard I choked!! Good one!
Aphan,
Thanks, but that one sort of wrote itself. 🙂
Watch it! A former student just reminded me that I wore cowboy boots teaching and last year I went to a good doctor who did. Boots keep you above the dung and hats keep off the snow and sun. Of course, this is Texas, faux Viking hats not allowed.
“faux Viking hats not allowed”
A faux Viking hat would get you in trouble in Texas. 🙂
Sadly, “climate science” today isn’t about the facts, it’s about the presentation.
Ring around the proxy
A pocket full of money
“Carbon! Carbon!”
We’ll all fall down!
The reason for all the new silly costumes is obvious. White lab coats have been in short supply.
I reject the premise that Anthropogenic Global Warming is harmful. So, what is that I have to put up? I didn’t make the extraordinary claim. It’s not me has to provide the extraordinary evidence.
For Mr. Fischel:
http://s8.postimg.org/sxyvolqs5/found_attention_you_were_looking_for.png
Obviously a fervent believer: https://despair.com/collections/posters/products/believe-in-yourself
You know something is wrong with him because he is wearing a horned helmet. No Viking ever wore one. This is clearly shown in Viking histories.
Quite true. They appeared in Wagner operas in the 1800’s….
I’d put more faith in his judgment on this if he could assert his forecasts are 100% accurate more than, say, 70% of the time.
You obviously misinterpreted Mr. Fischel. He only claims that his forecasts (and hindcasts for that matter) are 97% accurate.
Who does this clown think he is? Bill Nye?