Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
More than half of TV meteorologists deny AGW
- Thread starter Amelia
- Start date
That's what I heard today. What's up with that?
Ummm..........because they are not among the hordes of the hopelessly duped?
That's what I heard today. What's up with that?
Sounds like you made something up. Shame on you. I hear all sorts of things everyday, lots of them stupid. I don't waste people's time with it unless I have a cite, though.
That's what I heard today. What's up with that?
Where did you hear it, and why haven't you linked to it?
What's up with that?
wirebender
Senior Member
That's what I heard today. What's up with that?
Sounds like you made something up. Shame on you. I hear all sorts of things everyday, lots of them stupid. I don't waste people's time with it unless I have a cite, though.
It isn't made up konradv. Sorry to break it to you, but it is true. You would be hard pressed to find any scientist who doesn't depend on grant money to make his living who is on the AGW bandwagon and those who depend on grant money are in the very small minority.
The so called majority of scientists who support the hypothesis of AGW has been exposed as nearly as big of a hoax as AGW itself.
That's what I heard today. What's up with that?
Sounds like you made something up. Shame on you. I hear all sorts of things everyday, lots of them stupid. I don't waste people's time with it unless I have a cite, though.
It isn't made up konradv. Sorry to break it to you, but it is true. You would be hard pressed to find any scientist who doesn't depend on grant money to make his living who is on the AGW bandwagon and those who depend on grant money are in the very small minority.
The so called majority of scientists who support the hypothesis of AGW has been exposed as nearly as big of a hoax as AGW itself.
No cite, either!!! Self-serving anecdotes don't impress me.
RollingThunder
Gold Member
- Mar 22, 2010
- 4,818
- 522
- 155
The so called majority of scientists who support the hypothesis of AGW has been exposed as nearly as big of a hoax as AGW itself.That's what I heard today. What's up with that?
Sounds like you made something up. Shame on you. I hear all sorts of things everyday, lots of them stupid. I don't waste people's time with it unless I have a cite, though.
Only in your deranged denier cult fantasy world, wiredwrong.
In the real world, your denier cult myths are a sad joke on the rightwingnut retards like you who fall for that moronic bullcrap.
about a year ago George Mason University conducted a poll about whether the Climategate emails had had any impact on various professions. Meteorologists were one of them, and they had more members that disagreed with the concept of AGW and its impact on weather than members that agreed. I may even have started a thread about it back then.
the present fuss is about a green/CAGW group that is trying to 'out' the 'deniers' and either have them fired or make them toe the 'consensus' line.
a newspaper article-
that should get you started at least
the present fuss is about a green/CAGW group that is trying to 'out' the 'deniers' and either have them fired or make them toe the 'consensus' line.
George Mason University study figures out what I already knew: Climategate had a major impact on TV meteorologists | Watts Up With That?FAIRFAX, Va.—A new paper by George Mason University researchers shows that ‘Climategate’—the unauthorized release in late 2009 of stolen e-mails between climate scientists in the U.S. and United Kingdom—undermined belief in global warming and possibly also trust in climate scientists among TV meteorologists in the United States, at least temporarily.
In the largest and most representative survey of television weathercasters to date, George Mason University’s Center for Climate Change Communication and Center for Social Science Research asked these meteorologists early in 2010, when news stories about the climate e-mails were breaking, several questions about their awareness of the issue, attention to the story and impact of the story on their beliefs about climate change. A large majority (82 percent) of the respondents indicated they had heard of Climategate, and nearly all followed the story at least “a little.”
Forecastthefacts.org – Political Activists Gagging Our TV Meteorologists on Climate Issues | Watts Up With That?The front page of forecasthefacts.org has a list of who has been naughty and the statement:
In order to convince meteorologists to forecast the facts, we have to know where they stand. So we’re tracking meteorologists’ attitudes toward climate change across the country.
a newspaper article-
Activists want climate change on TV weather reports - Houston ChronicleLocal forecaster Gene Norman of KHOU (Channel 11) said he doesn't welcome being dragged into what he calls the politicization of climate science.
"I'm concerned about this 'Forecast The Facts' campaign and the underlying assumption that TV meteorologists are somehow misleading the public and are espousing some kind of scientific heresy," Norman said.
The campaign was spurred in part by a pair of surveys conducted in 2010 and 2011 by George Mason University.
Polarizing views
The first survey found that 63 percent of tele*vision forecasters attributed global warming to natural causes, while just 31 percent believed it was mostly brought about by human activity. More than one-quarter of respondents called global warming a "scam."
that should get you started at least
News Desk: Al Gore on the Failure of Climate-Change Legislation : The New Yorker
deranged denier cult = Not Losing
The environmental radicals dont get that when you fuck around with the data, you lose all credibility, thus, you lose public support. Sorry......but thats how it works. Its time for the radicals to reinvent themselves because their hyper-alarmist strategy has been nothing less than a spectacular failure. Indeed..........who is it impressing?
NOBODY
...........except like minded radicals who continue to push the same agenda as if running into a wall head first. And you know what they say about people who keep doing the same thing over and over and over expecting a different outcome?
Mental Cases
deranged denier cult = Not Losing
The environmental radicals dont get that when you fuck around with the data, you lose all credibility, thus, you lose public support. Sorry......but thats how it works. Its time for the radicals to reinvent themselves because their hyper-alarmist strategy has been nothing less than a spectacular failure. Indeed..........who is it impressing?
NOBODY
...........except like minded radicals who continue to push the same agenda as if running into a wall head first. And you know what they say about people who keep doing the same thing over and over and over expecting a different outcome?
Mental Cases
Last edited:
Thanks Ian. Was that so hard, everybody? 
Ask me how much I love watching the fringe fucks crash and burn??!!!
Last edited:
Thanks Ian. Was that so hard, everybody?
you should go out and get some google lessons if it's that important to you that everything be cited.
oh, and stop whining. it's unseemly
NO You can't help people out, if they don't learn to help themselves.
Old Rocks
Diamond Member
AMS Information Statement on Climate Change
Why is climate changing?
Climate has changed throughout geological history, for many natural reasons such as changes in the sun’s energy received by Earth arising from slow orbital changes, or changes in the sun’s energy reaching Earth’s surface due to volcanic eruptions. In recent decades, humans have increasingly affected local, regional, and global climate by altering the flows of radiative energy and water through the Earth system (resulting in changes in temperature, winds, rainfall, etc.), which comprises the atmosphere, land surface, vegetation, ocean, land ice, and sea ice. Indeed, strong observational evidence and results from modeling studies indicate that, at least over the last 50 years, human activities are a major contributor to climate change.
Direct human impact is through changes in the concentration of certain trace gases such as carbon dioxide, chlorofluorocarbons, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and water vapor, known collectively as greenhouse gases. Enhanced greenhouse gases have little effect on the incoming energy of the sun, but they act as a blanket to reduce the outgoing infrared radiation emitted by Earth and its atmosphere; the surface and atmosphere therefore warm so as to increase the outgoing energy until the outgoing and incoming flows of energy are equal. Carbon dioxide accounts for about half of the human-induced greenhouse gas contribution to warming since the late 1800s, with increases in the other greenhouse gases accounting for the rest; changes in solar output may have provided an augmentation to warming in the first half of the 20th century.
Carbon dioxide concentration is rising mostly as a result of fossil-fuel burning and partly from clearing of vegetation; about 50% of the enhanced emissions remain in the atmosphere, while the rest of the Earth system continues to absorb the remaining 50%. In the last 50 years atmospheric CO2 concentration has been increasing at a rate much faster than any rates observed in the geological record of the past several thousand years. Global annual-mean surface temperatures are rising at a rapid rate to values higher than at any time in the last 400 (and probably in the last 1000) years. Once introduced in the atmosphere, carbon dioxide remains for at least a few hundred years and implies a lengthy guarantee of sustained future warming. Further, increases in greenhouse gases are nearly certain to produce continued increases in temperature. Such changes in temperature lead to changes in clouds, pressure, winds, and rainfall in a complex sequence of further effects.
Human activity also affects climate through changes in the number and physical properties of tiny particles (aerosols) suspended in the atmosphere, and through changes in the land surface. Aerosols arise from dust, sea salt, and air pollution. They absorb and redirect radiation emitted by the sun and Earth. They also modify the ability of clouds to reflect sunlight and to form precipitation. Most aerosols originating from human activity act to cool the planet and so partly counteract greenhouse gas effects; this effect will diminish as clean-air legislation leads to reduced emissions of fine aerosols. Stratospheric aerosols emitted by occasional large sulfur-rich volcanic eruptions can cause temporary (1–3 years) reductions in surface temperature. By contrast, carbon soot from wildfires and biomass burning warms the planet, so that decreases in soot would reduce warming. Aerosols have much shorter lifetimes in the atmosphere than most greenhouse gases and exhibit large regional variations in concentration and properties. A deeper understanding of their global and regional roles is a high priority for climate science
Why is climate changing?
Climate has changed throughout geological history, for many natural reasons such as changes in the sun’s energy received by Earth arising from slow orbital changes, or changes in the sun’s energy reaching Earth’s surface due to volcanic eruptions. In recent decades, humans have increasingly affected local, regional, and global climate by altering the flows of radiative energy and water through the Earth system (resulting in changes in temperature, winds, rainfall, etc.), which comprises the atmosphere, land surface, vegetation, ocean, land ice, and sea ice. Indeed, strong observational evidence and results from modeling studies indicate that, at least over the last 50 years, human activities are a major contributor to climate change.
Direct human impact is through changes in the concentration of certain trace gases such as carbon dioxide, chlorofluorocarbons, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and water vapor, known collectively as greenhouse gases. Enhanced greenhouse gases have little effect on the incoming energy of the sun, but they act as a blanket to reduce the outgoing infrared radiation emitted by Earth and its atmosphere; the surface and atmosphere therefore warm so as to increase the outgoing energy until the outgoing and incoming flows of energy are equal. Carbon dioxide accounts for about half of the human-induced greenhouse gas contribution to warming since the late 1800s, with increases in the other greenhouse gases accounting for the rest; changes in solar output may have provided an augmentation to warming in the first half of the 20th century.
Carbon dioxide concentration is rising mostly as a result of fossil-fuel burning and partly from clearing of vegetation; about 50% of the enhanced emissions remain in the atmosphere, while the rest of the Earth system continues to absorb the remaining 50%. In the last 50 years atmospheric CO2 concentration has been increasing at a rate much faster than any rates observed in the geological record of the past several thousand years. Global annual-mean surface temperatures are rising at a rapid rate to values higher than at any time in the last 400 (and probably in the last 1000) years. Once introduced in the atmosphere, carbon dioxide remains for at least a few hundred years and implies a lengthy guarantee of sustained future warming. Further, increases in greenhouse gases are nearly certain to produce continued increases in temperature. Such changes in temperature lead to changes in clouds, pressure, winds, and rainfall in a complex sequence of further effects.
Human activity also affects climate through changes in the number and physical properties of tiny particles (aerosols) suspended in the atmosphere, and through changes in the land surface. Aerosols arise from dust, sea salt, and air pollution. They absorb and redirect radiation emitted by the sun and Earth. They also modify the ability of clouds to reflect sunlight and to form precipitation. Most aerosols originating from human activity act to cool the planet and so partly counteract greenhouse gas effects; this effect will diminish as clean-air legislation leads to reduced emissions of fine aerosols. Stratospheric aerosols emitted by occasional large sulfur-rich volcanic eruptions can cause temporary (1–3 years) reductions in surface temperature. By contrast, carbon soot from wildfires and biomass burning warms the planet, so that decreases in soot would reduce warming. Aerosols have much shorter lifetimes in the atmosphere than most greenhouse gases and exhibit large regional variations in concentration and properties. A deeper understanding of their global and regional roles is a high priority for climate science
RollingThunder
Gold Member
- Mar 22, 2010
- 4,818
- 522
- 155
That's what I heard today. What's up with that?
Hot Air
Why dont TV weathermen believe in climate change?
Columbia Journalism Review
January / February 2010
(excerpts)
That was where the surveys findings got interesting. When asked whom they trusted for information about global warming, 66 percent of the respondents named television weather reporters. That was well above what the media as a whole got, and higher than the percentage who trusted Vice-President-turned-climate-activist Al Gore, either of the 2008 presidential nominees, religious leaders, or corporations. Scientists commanded greater credibility, but only 18 percent of Americans actually know one personally; 99 percent, by contrast, own a television. Meteorology benefits from the fact that were just about the only science that has an individual in peoples living rooms every night, says Keith Seitter, the executive director of the American Meteorological Society. For many people, its the only scientist whose name they know.
There is one little problem with this: most weathercasters are not really scientists. When Wilson surveyed a broader pool of weathercasters in an earlier study, barely half of them had a college degree in meteorology or another atmospheric science. Only 17 percent had received a graduate degree, effectively a prerequisite for an academic researcher in any scientific field.
Well worth reading the whole article.
Nobody believes the "human activity" stuff anymore.
It is, after all, 2012.
It is, after all, 2012.
RollingThunder
Gold Member
- Mar 22, 2010
- 4,818
- 522
- 155
Nobody believes the "human activity" stuff anymore.
It is, after all, 2012.
"Nobody" must mean the other members of your therapy group in whatever nuthouse they have you locked up in.
Nobody believes the "human activity" stuff anymore.
It is, after all, 2012.
"Nobody" must mean the other members of your therapy group in whatever nuthouse they have you locked up in.
except I can prove it s0n............you never bring dick to the table.
RollingThunder
Gold Member
- Mar 22, 2010
- 4,818
- 522
- 155
except I can prove it s0n............you never bring dick to the table.Nobody believes the "human activity" stuff anymore.
It is, after all, 2012.
"Nobody" must mean the other members of your therapy group in whatever nuthouse they have you locked up in.
The only thing you ever actually "prove", kookster, is what a completely clueless, ignorant retard you are. Your moronic posts are occasionally good for a laugh but they are always meaningless and usually quite insane.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 36
- Views
- 558
- Replies
- 40
- Views
- 428
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 63
- Views
- 291
- Replies
- 101
- Views
- 339
- Replies
- 162
- Views
- 1K
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8032
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 468
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-