It all started with this, a tie design to illustrate global warming:
The source, climate modeler Ed Hawkins, who’s a lead author in IPCC AR6 climate report.
Warming stripes for central England, USA, Toronto and the globe.
Each stripe represents the temperature in a particular year, demonstrating how different locations and the planet has warmed over many decades: https://t.co/H5Hv9YgZ7v #MetsUnite #SummerSolstice pic.twitter.com/boiQFfqHPR
— Ed Hawkins (@ed_hawkins) June 21, 2018
From NBC News:
GOP senators challenge funding for global warming education program
Four Republican senators say a $4 million program to boost climate reporting by meteorologists is not science, but “propagandizing.”
Four Republican senators called Wednesday for an investigation of National Science Foundation grants, saying the federal agency had ventured beyond science and into political advocacy, particularly with its support of a program to encourage TV weathercasters to report on global warming.
The four senators called for the foundation’s inspector general to investigate the $4 million program to increase climate reporting by meteorologists, saying it “is not science — it is propagandizing.”
The senators — Ted Cruz of Texas, Rand Paul of Kentucky and James Lankford and Jim Inhofe, both of Oklahoma — said the program, run by the nonprofit Climate Central, epitomizes National Science Foundation grants that stray beyond their appropriate scope of “basic research.”
The demand for an investigation came the same day that NBC News reported how Climate Central had helped educate more than 500 TV weathercasters across the country on global warming and the impacts it is having on everything from temperatures to the growth of poison ivy to the amount of pollen in the air. The organization’s six-year-old program with TV weather reporters is called “Climate Matters.”
The senators’ objections were made in a letter to science foundation’s inspector general, Allison Lerner. It charged that the foundation had “issued several grants which seek to influence political and social debate rather than conduct scientific research.” That may have violated not only the agency’s mission but the Hatch Act, the federal law that prohibits federal employees from taking public political positions, the senators said.
Ben Strauss, CEO of Climate Central, rejected the contention that his organization engaged in politics. The foundation grants “support informal public science education concerning well-established science,” Strauss said via email. “Climate Central is not an advocacy organization, and the scientific consensus on climate change is not a political viewpoint.” He added that it was well-known that the science foundation supports science education.
Full story here
What got this kicked off? Ed hawkins and his ridiculous graphs trying to show how terrible warming is. One in particular, got turned into a tie, and was offered to TV mets around the world.
BERLIN (AP) — TV weather presenters around the world have teamed up to highlight the impact of climate change by wearing ties, pendants and badges with “warming stripes” while on air.
Meteorologists from the United States, Britain, Italy, Spain, Germany, Belgium, Hong Kong and Canada sported the patterns on Thursday while showing annual temperatures compared to the 1850-2017 average.
The patterns show a clear trend, from blue colors in the 19th century indicating lower-than-average temperatures to bright red colors in recent decades showing sharply warmer temperatures.
Ed Hawkins, a climate scientist at the University of Reading, England, said Friday that over 100 ties alone were sold worldwide.
The event, which used the hashtag #MetsUnite on social media, was the brainchild of Jeff Berardelli, a meteorologist with CBS12 in Florida.
You may see this a lot on your feed today. This "warming stripes" design was created @ed_hawkins. It shows the average global temperature from 1850 to 2017. The earth IS getting hotter #MetsUnite @WeatherProf pic.twitter.com/SsH1Pk8bo9
— Lauren Olesky (@LoleskyWX) June 21, 2018
You can see this guy Jeff Berardelli sporting one of those ties.
Amazing response to #MetsUnite – lots of meteorologists discussing climate change today while wearing stripey ties, earrings & necklaces (available here: https://t.co/mcjRLPgyOg).@WeatherProf has done a great job organising! Summary: https://t.co/gGuLKNSP8S pic.twitter.com/xgA0F1jCxT
— Ed Hawkins (@ed_hawkins) June 21, 2018
TV meteorologists made a colorful statement about the impacts of climate change https://t.co/SgAv5sjNvr pic.twitter.com/TrMVNptwjr
— Ed Hawkins (@ed_hawkins) June 26, 2018
Thank you to everyone who participated in #MetsUnite! Special thanks to @ed_hawkins pictured in photo. Amazing work by @JillPeetersWX at @CLIMATEwBORDERS who rallied the World! I'm grateful! Hong Kong, Taiwan, Germany, Brazil, Andorra, Belgium, UK, Canada, S. Africa, Italy, USA! pic.twitter.com/P6F6V1LRbK
— Jeff Berardelli (@WeatherProf) June 22, 2018
And that TV meteorologist campaign, which Climate Central had a hand in promoting,was a step too far.
Congrats Ed Hawkins, you’ve really stepped in it.
Here’s a good design for a tie for TV meteorologists, who report actual temperatures in Fahrenheit to their viewers daily. It’s the plot of global land and sea temperature done of the scale of an actual thermometer, instead of the magnified scale of anomalies covering just 1.5 degrees, seen below it.
Now THAT’S a difference would tell the TV viewing public a lot.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It is NOT about education, it is all about VIRTUE SIGNALLING
Giss is basically fiction. Before 1980, data from weather stations at airports, ect. Thermometers read to the nearest degree F, huge coverage issues. The most generous error bars I would give it is +/-0.5 C. After 1980, UAH, better error bars and much better coverage, is flat to 1998, spike then flat at a couple tenths higher till 2016/17 spike, very slightly higher, that is now coming back down. The “warming” is barely statistically significant, never mind the comparison to temperature variations over the last 10000 years or so.
Oh, and peer review, at best it is only advanced proof reading for glaring logic, math and data errors. It has never had anything to do with verifying scientific accuracy or truth.
Wait, what? How can there be more plant growth when it’s settled science that the temperature 175 years ago at every point on earth was at its optimum for all life on earth?
Oh I get it now, agricultural crops don’t behave the same as POISON ivy, and nuisance levels of pollen only come from undesirable plants. Is that it then?
I see our local weathergirl Jill Peeters (@JillPeetersWX) is involved. She doesn’t even know the difference between weather and climate and ties every extreme event to global warming… A few years ago she made a report about the floods in S.W. England and said that was a result of global warming, while and English professor said that it was just bad weather as the train of rain was following the jet stream, like as it happened before. The mian difference: marshes were meanwhile dried for agriculture and rivers were now above land height…
Jill Peeters is one of these deep green, near religious adepts of global warming, but her CO2 footprint is in ratio to her belief: travelling the whole world to chase twisters…
Ferdinand, shame on you. Weermeisje?
Jill’s a WEATHERWOMAN with a warm heart for the climate.
And by the way, you Flemings are not as advanced socially as you think. Over here on the barbarian side of the Atlantic, we haven’t used gender-specific occupation names for decades. The weatherman has long been the meteorologist, the fireman is the firefighter, the mailman is the letter carrier, the milkman is the…well we don’t have those anymore. On npr you’ll even hear of fishers rather than fishermen.
Rich Davis,
OK, I admit that “girl” in this case was intended negative, must be my own bias against that woman…
But for the rest, not too fast in your conclusions…
We have firemen and firewomen, fishermen and fisherwomen, truck drivers in M/F (vrachtwagen bestuurder/bestuurster in Flemish/Dutch), while nurse still is used as only female in (American) English or you need to specify a male nurse, while in Dutch no problem (M/F is verpleger/verpleegster). We also have a few non-gender specific professions like vissers (fishers), postbode (literally “post carrier”). But also sometimes strange sounding combinations: if they want to hire “metsers” (masons) and do add M/F, but that has the same problem in (American) English…
And BTW, if a woman gets married here, she still can/does use her own maiden name, while in the US she gets only/mostly known as Mrs X, as “attachment” to her husband X, even if she is already 20 years divorced from X…
Of course you knew I was being playful in my chastisement, I hope. Vlaanderen is one of my favorite places to visit, Brugge and Gent especially.
Ferdinand,
The era of Armand Pien is definitely over. I appreciate Frank Deboosere, I figure he isn’t an alarmist. In the Netherlands, the weather forecasts themselves are ‘gender-neutral’ as warm- and cold-fronts no longer exist, too complicated to grasp.
Baseline for the anomaly graph? Bueller? Bueller?
I thought we just had this story here a few days ago.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/06/21/republican-senators-demand-a-probe-of-federal-climate-grants/
“…Each stripe represents the temperature in a particular year, demonstrating how different locations and the planet has warmed over many decades…”
How does the tie represent warming at “different locations?” Lol
… classic illustration of FALSE representation.
Fraud by negligence, or representing as fact that which a reasonable person should know or be responsible enough to learn is false.
This tie could easily be confused for an increase in daily caloric content by mankind, or the decline in poverty since the dawn of the industrial age, or the benefit of energy usage by humans around the planet tied to market forces and global wealth.
No one ever accused leftists and lemmings of being bright.
Why limit agency research funding reviews to the NSF? Far too much government research funding is dominated by “What if” studies. NSF analyses of future global warming threats that assume CAGM is a given even though that premise is demonstrably hypothetical and may is likely just one of many examples of waste of government resources. Spewing out misinformation on global warming on 500 TV stations nationwide should be a crime for fraud and abuse of government grants that warrants investigation by the Office of Inspector General. Reviewing the work of the other 32 agencies under the Inspectors General Office might also be a good thing to do.
https://imgur.com/nvAq9cH
In the graph above, the rate of increase (first derivative) of the global mean temperature trend-line equation has been constant or steadily decreasing since October 2000. The HadCRUT4 temperature anomaly has decreased by nearly 40 percent from March 2016, the El Nino peak, to July 2017. The rate of change of the trend-line will likely become negative within the next 20 years, reaching the lowest global mean trend-line temperature in almost 40 years. (draft ref: An-Analysis-of-the-Mean-Global-Temperature-in-2031 at http://www.uh.edu/nsm/earth-atmospheric/people/faculty/tom-bjorklund/) Lower temperatures could persist for decades.
The adverse consequences of a warming earth are no greater than the adverse consequences of a cooling earth. Policies appropriate for the warming case would be diametrically opposite to those appropriate for the cooling case, e.g., in the high case, CO2 might be reduced in the atmosphere to lower temperatures; in the low case, ice sheets might be covered with carbon black to accelerate melting and increase temperatures. Under these realities, promulgating environmental regulations with too little information could exacerbate a threat instead of reducing it. The likely damage from acting on the wrong premise, a warming or a cooling planet, nullifies arguments for either action until the science is right.
Until science narrows the estimated long-term temperature range such that mitigation measures are appropriate for the entire range, the best choice is to take no action. A good way to prioritize government funding might be to cancel all hypothetical “What if” projects in all agencies and focus on completing the research before prematurely running up an ill-conceived idea on 500 flag poles.
The one thing you can be sure of is they wear the PR crown. Think not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee; unless we do something to stop this suicidal trip. No amount of data will change their mind; but they are nervous, which is why they are upping the ante. Time to nail our thesis on the door.
Shows how bad and misguided the propaganda effort is. It is nearly impossible to watch any kind of a science show, documentary, animal, ocean, mountain, etc on any science, public, children’s channel with the five minute discourse on how mankind is ruining what we are showing you in this presentation. This propaganda is even pushed on shows about the universe and even worse preschool children entertainment and education shows.
Why are valuable resources and energy being wasted to produce these ties in the first place? If he really believed what he was saying, then he wouldn’t be wanting to add to the problem that comes with the production of everything from food to clothing. It’s like Al Gore bemoaning sea level rise and then buying beachfront property. Follow the money, people. Follow the money. Oh! And the hypocrisy.
Rules for Warmists.
Tell them it’s not political. (Anything that changes public policy through government intervention in the economy is by its very definition political. If that intervention involves unnecessarily increasing the cost of energy, a key control knob for any economy, it is highly political. Divert, Divert!)
Baby steps. Mention warming in as many ways as possible as often as possible while taking care not to overdo it. Try to sell the same old story while making it look like something new, so new novel approaches are especially valuable. The tie thing is pure propaganda genius!
Timing. The best time to reinforce the warming meme is at or near the summer solstice as temperatures usually rise then and continue to do so for a while because temperature increases generally lag behind increases in solar insolation. Remember the summer won’t last long, especially during a Solar Minimum, so milk it for all its worth! It’s important to build trust by appearing to be able to predict the future. Later in the year when people can’t get out of their houses because they’re buried in snow it might be wise to lay off the warming meme. Move on to ‘extreme weather’. (It’s amazing that that little CO2 molecule can do!)
Target your audience: Don’t bother trying to convince retired electrical engineers about anthropogenic global warming. They know the difference between a Rankin cycle and a motor cycle and most even understand radiative physics. They also know that even if everything you’re telling them is true (although they know it isn’t) it would take thousands of years to melt the Greenland ice cap due to the limited availability of energy from the Sun. (It would take a very big rock from outer space landing right in the middle, but I digress). The point is they know there is NO CLIMATE CRISIS!
It’s probably best to avoid those with good skills in logic and critical thinking. Many of them realise that if we take the full global human production of carbon dioxide on planet Earth into account the best, most expensive, strident efforts in places like California, the EU (except Germany!) Sweden the UK and Australia are more than made up for by other countries like China etc. who are valiantly doing their very best to keep that CO2 plant-food coming!
Don’t waste energy on most employed people. They won’t rock the lucrative climate boat because they like being employed.
Focus instead on the young because they’re eager to learn and it will take them quite a while to catch on, especially if their brains have been freshly washed at university. Old stupid people or those with mental impairments are also worth a shot.
I could go on but I’m getting bored and there’s a risk that someone might add, getting boring.
Hmmm, and what would that tie look like if you were to take the prevous 177 years before 1850 and make it the year at the bottom?