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
Open an excel spreadsheet and do a simple calculation of heat transfer between concentric spheres. The thermal conductivity of atmospheric components can be looked up on the internet. (So can the necessary equation). Change the CO2 contribution by an order of magnitude and get a rough idea about the magnitude of the impact on the heat transfer. Remember that thermal conductivity is a measured value. There is no way to turn off the radiative component of a gas while measuring its thermal conductivity. All of the various contributions are there. To convince yourself that your thermal conductivity components roughly add up to the atmospheric thermal conductivity components, compare current reported atmospheric thermal conductivity with that calculated in your spreadsheet using the components. Multiply the CO2 component by ten. Calculate how long it should take for the temperature of the planet to go up by one kelvin.This is a very coarse test, but perhaps instructive.
Note that a fair amount of the arguments depend on thermal radiation leaving the planet. Remember that the T of the planet is inhomogeneous and that the average T depends on T while the average emission depends on T^4. Open an excel spreadsheet. Give yourself a column for T and a column for T^4, both weighted by area. Show that it is possible to increase the average temperature while either increasing or decreasing the average T^4 within a few Kelvin. The reverse is also true.
That camera light in his picture goes in one ear and right out the other side .
Climate changes , it’s been warming for thousands of years thankfully
and if you think humans are now in charge of setting the temperature you are a denier .
How appropriate Fishel wears a Viking costume . Stick to Mr. Dress Up .
I know how he feels. I’d like to sell my home a km from the beach and I’m having trouble convincing RE agents it will be prime seafront any day now-
http://www.msn.com/en-au/news/techandscience/revealed-the-aussie-suburbs-expected-to-be-underwater-in-2100-because-of-climate-change/ar-BBBqUd4
although like the man says I’m not letting on that I want the money to put up and shut up shop-
https://www.wired.com/2012/06/ticket-to-space/
Gotta go as I see they’ve got a sale on baked beans and ammo again.
NSFW:
https://www.facebook.com/MyAstrologyStars/photos/a.387623541418875.1073741827.377924809055415/766011353580090/?type=3
It used the f-word twice, but it was used well.
And.,. It’s gone.
Yay, matey could get together with Scott Mandia and John Cook for some dressing-up fun and to moan about climate de niers.
Greg Fishel is right:
we live in an age today where higher education and research are no longer respected.
Instead, as always
we live in an age where “higher education” counts nothing compared to the COMPETENCE of a man.
So this clowns qualification is that he is a weatherman on one of three TV stations in a city that is 10% the size of Melbourne.
Gotta believe everything he says.
Raleigh is part of the “Raleigh-Durham” or “Research Triangle” media market, population approximately 1.2 million. It is just about exactly 25% the size of Melbourne. Greg Fishel has been the best-known local TV meteorologist here for about 35 years. By now he’s probably the most-recognized face on TV, around here.
He is completely wrong about climate change, but he’s not a “nobody.”
Good picture showing the helmet of Vikings that never existed.
The horns are growing out of his head, the helmet is just camouflage!
Hmm. Looks like he is trying to emulate his King Obama, getting ready to turn back the onrushing tide. (Too bad so few seem to know the actual story about Cnut the Great.)
https://youtu.be/krK7Q49o6uA
https://www.google.at/search?client=ms-android-samsung&ei=0HwlWZNz7MCABtnblagL&q=the+Viking+helmet+horns+that+never+existed+&oq=the+Viking+helmet+horns+that+never+existed+&gs_l=mobile-gws-serp.
Greg Fishel seems to have a “my evidence is all I need” attitude, which is hardly unique amongst the CAGW crowd. Same old story, same old song and dance.
Again, one of the biggest problems today is that so many “scientists” that seem to think Science is the sacred process of publishing in the holy Journals under the guidance of the Peers. That’s not how science works, that’s how religion works – science is proved by replication.
Probably >90% of scientifically verifiable phenomena have never been formally published at all, they’re just massively replicated. Many of them come from industry, many from common experience (“if you don’t eat, you starve to death” or “you can see better with your eyes open”). Anyone can test an hypothesis, anyone can practice science.
Here is a link to a peer reviewed paper
TRUMP and PRUITT get the SCIENCE RIGHT – NATURAL CYCLES DRIVE CLIMATE CHANGE.
Climate is controlled by natural cycles. Earth is just past the 2004+/- peak of a millennial cycle and the current cooling trend will likely continue until the next Little Ice Age minimum at about 2650.See the Energy and Environment paper at http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0958305X16686488
and an earlier accessible blog version at http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2017/02/the-coming-cooling-usefully-accurate_17.html
Here is the abstract for convenience :
“ABSTRACT
This paper argues that the methods used by the establishment climate science community are not fit for purpose and that a new forecasting paradigm should be adopted. Earth’s climate is the result of resonances and beats between various quasi-cyclic processes of varying wavelengths. It is not possible to forecast the future unless we have a good understanding of where the earth is in time in relation to the current phases of those different interacting natural quasi periodicities. Evidence is presented specifying the timing and amplitude of the natural 60+/- year and, more importantly, 1,000 year periodicities (observed emergent behaviors) that are so obvious in the temperature record. Data related to the solar climate driver is discussed and the solar cycle 22 low in the neutron count (high solar activity) in 1991 is identified as a solar activity millennial peak and correlated with the millennial peak -inversion point – in the RSS temperature trend in about 2004. The cyclic trends are projected forward and predict a probable general temperature decline in the coming decades and centuries. Estimates of the timing and amplitude of the coming cooling are made. If the real climate outcomes follow a trend which approaches the near term forecasts of this working hypothesis, the divergence between the IPCC forecasts and those projected by this paper will be so large by 2021 as to make the current, supposedly actionable, level of confidence in the IPCC forecasts untenable.””
The irony
He says PUT UP OR SHUT UP, but refuses to engage anyone who actually DOES ‘PUT UP’
I’d say he is the one who needs to put up or shut up. We know where that will end up
Hi all, I believe it was my link that started this post. I am a small independent car dealer and not a scientist. I have been following this debate for 7-8 years. I am strongly considering posting the following and could use some help with information gathering in the unlikely event I am taken up on the offer.
Open Letter to Greg Fishel regarding “Put up or Shut Up”
Hi Greg, As a Raleigh native, you have been my go to meteorologist for most of my life. I respect you greatly. I recognize that with any discussion about important topics there will be an array of attitudes and opinions. Some are based in fact, some opinion, some a little of both. Regardless, I think there is a huge misunderstanding of what most reasonable “skeptics” of “climate change” are suggesting. Therefore, I am willing to “put up” $500 of my hard earned money to simply have and lead a real and honest discussion that is recorded for all to see. Perhaps I will be shown the light, as I am seeking the truth. Perhaps, I can help clear the air on what reasonable “skeptics” are suggesting. I am not skeptical about “climate change”. I am skeptical that man-kinds contribution of CO2 will have catastrophic consequences. Conversely, what is mankind capable of doing to stop it. Yes, I do believe that much of the actual science related to climate change has been hijacked to promote a political agenda. I believe this can be demonstrated. Show me the light and I will give $500 to the charity of your choice. If we should have a reasonable discussion that indicates there is truth to what I say. Let’s split it, $250 from me and $250 from you to the charity of your choice. This is done in the spirit of more fully understanding this important topic. My goal, separate the science from advocacy.
Browsing the internet, I discovered where the “viking horns” idea came from.
The popular image of the strapping Viking in a horned helmet dates back to the 1800s, when Scandinavian artists like Sweden’s Gustav Malmström included the headgear in their portrayals of the raiders. When Wagner staged his “Der Ring des Nibelungen” opera cycle in the 1870s, costume designer Carl Emil Doepler created horned helmets for the Viking characters, and an enduring stereotype was born.
Greg Fishel has been the weatherman at WRAL in Raleigh for several years and was always skeptical of climate change claims. Until, that is, WRAL switched to an NBC affiliate in early 2016. Then he had to toe the climate change party line at NBC or be thrown out. He caved and has become an elder Bill Nye of sorts. Hence, the latest fake temper tantrum with no real arguments one way or the other. I predict we will not see reasoning or science supporting or refuting climate change from Fishel as he is smart enough to know the truth but is also smart enough to keep getting paid.
Is the hat in the picture for a Greenland viking, cause those guys are the obvious put up/shut up symbol of climate skepticism.
In my town, the weathermen are weather gals. The news producers were smart enough to realize that men only are interested in the Sports Report. To keep them watching between the local crime report and sports, they parade young blonde females who are recent grads (no idea if they are meteorologists. But the young weather women can read teleprompters). Greg Fishel at WRAL takes himself too seriously. He’s in the entertainment business. Most of use could care less what the TV weather persons’ views are concerning AGW.
I know I know. They are many trained meteorologists on TV. Most are damn good ones. But, for me, a former aviation forecaster, the last place I go to check the weather is the local TV News. There’s a number of TV meteorologist I follow on Twitter.
Greg Fischel lives in my town. I’ve responded to his challenge, via Facebook post, direct Facebook message to his personal account, Twitter, and direct email. This is what I wrote:
Typo correction: “Fischel” should be “Fishel” — sorry. Saw it as soon as I posted it.
Dave, I hope you’re prepared to change your phone number here shortly. You’re inviting the entire circus, not just the clown, to make your life miserable…
I have unlimited minutes, Aphan.
Not the number of minutes you have that concerns me. You just published your telephone number on a world-read blog, and on Facebook and Twitter. Prepare for calls all hours of the day and night, your voicemail box filling up, random messages, having to scroll through endless texts, and the possibility that your friends and loved ones cannot reach you if necessary because of the above or because you just shut it off.
Buy another phone.
We live in interesting times. Most folks accept with a shrug that governments and numerous giant companies have compiled big, fat dossiers about us all. Yet those same folks are afraid of their phone number being publicly known.
They think nothing of swiping their Kroger “loyalty card,” in exchange for a few pennies discount, when they buy anything, so that the grocery store can keep track of what they eat, the pharmaceuticals they use, and even their preferences in toiletries. They buy everything with “plastic” so that their bank knows how and where they spend every penny. Yet if they post an opinion on-line they do so using a nom de plume.
It all seems strange to me. I grew up quite a while ago, and it was the other way around. Everyone’s phone number and address was in the phone book, and you could call xxx-555-1212 and find almost anyone. But we bought everything with cash, and nobody had records of our preferences in toiletries.
I guess I’m an anachronism. I still don’t mind everyone having my phone number or other contact information. But I kind of wish that Google didn’t have my life’s email history, my appointment calendar, and my Little Black Book.
http://sealevel.info/i_for_one_welcome_our_new_google_overlords.jpg
“the problem is that you won’t read them” – or even admit they exist.
What is so sad to me is that he so publicly called people out, and when they responded, he flat-out ignored them. Hundreds of responses to his FB post, and not once did he even acknowledge any of those responding to him.
I’ve met him – used to work in the same place – and this is very much not the impression I had of the man. It is saddening (and maddening)
When you don’t have the chops, you turn tail and run when confronted.
I am pleased to report that I was wrong. Greg Fishel has replied to my email, and he has indicated that he is very willing to meet and discuss over lunch. (No commitment, so far, to a public debate or discussion, but I am hopeful.)
My erroneous belief that he was unwilling to consider or discuss other viewpoints was based on his failure to reply to messages from me in 2015 and 2016. But it is likely that he simply overlooked those messages, which I can certainly understand. I, too, often overlook messages from others (which is a source of frequent embarrassment).
I am also pleased to report than, so far, my phone number hasn’t been hit with any harassing calls or texts.
I am thrilled to hear all of the above. I hope you’ll report back to us on how your lunch date/debate goes. I’m highly interested to hear how things turn out.
Dave, I am quite happy to hear that. That sounds more like the Greg I used to know.
Where is all his physical, irrefutable proof? Oh, yea, got none. All he has is his fake [pruned] religion of Human Caused Globall Warmining.
[“Warmining”? Might be more accurate than you expect. .mod]
I made a comment or two (Dale Mullen) and was immediately attacked by the cultists. Too bad, few if any, from this forum failed to jump in for support.
spock2009, where do you comment? On Greg Fishel’s Facebook post, or on the N&O story, or elsewhere? Do you save links to your comments, which you could post, please?
I have been a scientist for more than 30 years, more than 120 peer-reviewed publications, multi-millions in highly competitive federal funding, involved in training more than 50 PhDs (14 as their major professor), and I have read several of the peer-reviewed climate science papers of the type lampooned recently by Scott Adams in Dilbert. He is exactly correct. In fact, one particular “climate science” paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences stands out to me as possibly the worst paper I have ever seen. It’s the one in which an unvalidated climate model, which is known even by IPCC as totally worthless for regional climate prediction, was used to generate “data” which were then fed into a second unvalidated model to predict crop production. The output from the crop production model was then used as “data” and fed into an absolutely ludicrous model that used crop production to predict migration of people from Mexico to the U.S. Why do I say it was a ludicrous model? Because it didn’t consider any potential confounders that might have more impact than crop production on deciding to leave one’s home and move to a different country. In serious biomedical epidemiology studies that I read, this would have been regarded as a silly joke and would not have passed the first step of peer review. It wouldn’t have been pretty. Reviewers would not have said fix 20 things and send this back to us, they would have said this isn’t science; go away and don’t bother us again. Yet this paper was hailed in the press and defended online by “real” climate scientists. There is a real and serious difference between “climate science” and real science.
In climate science, Steve, it appears that speculation – especially model speculation – is taken as hard evidence.
Models are programmed with modelers’ assumptions. Enough said?
I do think the specialized models, which try to model specific processes like PGR or radiation transport, are useful. But I am deeply skeptical of the GCMs.
In general, for a computer model to be useful it is a prerequisite that the modelers have a good understanding of what they are modeling. MODTRAN passes that test, the GCMs fail it.
The so-called “semi-empirical models” are worst of all. They’re garbage.
“Semi-empirical modeling” is an oxymoron: “modeling” that doesn’t model anything. It is sort of like modeling, but without reference to any physical basis. It is really just curve-matching. It can be made to produce just about any result you want.
GCMs are subject to criticisms that they don’t accurately model the real world, because of inconsistency with observations of things like clouds and the predicted tropical mid-tropospheric hot spot. The semi-empirical modelers neatly avoid such criticism, by not even trying to model the real world. It’s the worst sort of junk science.
Who uses semi-empirical models, and for what purposes, Dave?
Dave Fair, that’s how oceanographer Stefan Rahmstorf comes up with his predictions of wildly accelerated sea-level rise:
http://tinyurl.com/rahmstuff
Those wild predictions are useful to Rahmstorf’s financial supporters at Munich Re, to help sell expensive reinsurance. Just a coincidence, I suppose.