The Weather Channel is not where one would expect a media scrum but the venerable channel went after conservative site Breitbart with a haymaker of a video after Breitbart used one of its reporters, Kait Parker, for a story suggesting that the Earth is actually getting colder. The video is below.
Parker was not pleased to see a clip featuring an earlier segment that she did as support for what she argued was a distortion of the available scientific data. As noted earlier, I am in agreement with her view of climate change. However, I have disagreed with the unilateral actions taken by the Obama Administration in the area to circumvent Congress.
Parker notes “Last week, Breitbart-dot-com published a story claiming global warming is nothing but a scare, and global temperatures were actually falling. The problem is, they used a completely unrelated video about La Niña with my face in it to attempt to back their point.”
The rest can be seen below but this is a debate that is likely to heat up in Washington with President-elect Trump’s selection of a climate denier and oil industry advocate Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt to lead the Environmental Protection Agency.
And if summer temperatures in Florida go up a lot then all those New Yorkies willl go back to NY.
What would be wrong with that!
Lee – Trump is busy fortifying his Mira Lago and who care if the rest of you slide into the ocean.
Just so they leave those giant pythons in FL.
I am all for climate change. If the average temp in Chicago goes up to the likes of Charleston then I will move back to Chicago.
One area that never seems to come up is the environmental damage war causes. Talk about some CO2. And–the way-nasty stuff that gets left behind. Haven’t seen Obama cut back much on that. Or even the carbon dioxide that Guantánamo Bay puts out. But I guess that is outside the blinders the left seems to wear on most things these days.
I guess drones don’t emit that much, so Issac is probably good with it.
Whats’ more dangerous: “Hello, I’m from the govt. and I’m here to help” or “Hello, I’m from the govt. and I decided that the science is settled”?
Science is never settled; skepticism is healthy. But that isn’t the same as outright denial.
Well said. Intimidation is not persuasion. Intimidation produces extreme reaction = denial.
1. Annually, global carbon emissions reach tens of billions of tons: and there are no effects, no aggregated damage?
People who claim that climate-change is a hoax must think that what putters out of their mufflers and from power-plants decade after decade just magically disappears.
2. Politicians especially don’t seem to understand scientific consensus. Legitimacy does not derive from such consensus: it derives from the evidence that creates the consensus in the first place. I trust NASA and climatologists across multiplep universities, who are actually on the ground, far more than myopic blowhards like Inhofe and, insanely, the House Science Committee.
Doesn’t equal one good volcano eruption. Until I see more reliable sources than Gore’s Secular 700 club I’ll stick to sticking with the weather around my solar and wind powered floating house.
The real cure is making a house or whatever energy efficient with weather proofing. The second real cure is switch to nuclear and anthracite coal with filters on the latter and quit enabling Al Bore.
Those steps will work no matter if the temps are going up or down
Weather and climate aren’t the same thing.
And a volcanic eruption can be a catastrophic single event: a punch in the face. Climate-change is longer term.
Dave137,
Who exactly is emitting Carbon into the atmosphere? Why would they do that? Seems like a waste.
Dave137 – “I trust NASA and climatologists across multiplep universities, ”
You wouldn’t trust a study that came from Exxon/Mobil would you? So, why would you trust a university that relies on grant money for its studies?
If Exxon produced repeatable, verifiable results, I would trust their study.
The science speaks for itself.
Crazy stuff. Meet the Guy Who Thinks the Blizzard Was a Government Attack on #NoDAPL Protesters in North Dakota.
Dane Wigington, who describes himself as the “lead researcher” for GeoEngineering Watch, accused some shadowy cabal of manufacturing the recent blizzard which hit the #NoDAPL protest camp and surrounding region.
Geoengineering/weather warfare has now been added to the already long list of criminal assaults that have been hurled at the peaceful pipeline protesters. In the coming days and weeks, weather warfare will likely be the most deadly and effective weapon that the power structure will wield against the peaceful Dakota pipeline protesters.”
“If you don’t believe snowstorms can be completely engineered, you have not done your research,” Wiginton continues. “Weather warfare has long since been a covert weapon of choice for the criminals that truly control our government.”
90+% of scientists attest to there being a global warming with a significant contribution by humans burning fossil fuels. Humans burning fossil fuels, wood, etc and causing rivers to die as well as people are by now well chronicled facts. Yet almost half of Americans feel differently and have just elected an idiot who has placed a supporter of the burning of fossil fuels in charge of that particular hen house.
Those that voted for Trump are definitely more than a few bricks short of a load. But, hey, after all, they have Jim Inhofe to set them straight. Electing an idiot says something about you. Defending an idiot speaks volumes, legal wizard or not.
Don’t mistake your ‘opinion’ for ‘fact.’
From my viewpoint, it’s often a mistake to use ‘absolutes’….for example, I might also say that you are “definitely more than a few bricks short of a load.” But I cannot know that with such certainty that you claim to know it about me.
issac – have you any idea of the amount of academic fraud that goes on? I am not sure I would believe any scientist if he said his house was on fire.
Paul
When something is that consistent, has been with us for that many years, decades, centuries, one tends to realize that the house is burning or in some cases a river. Man has been polluting the environment from the beginning of time. It is easier and cheaper to throw your garbage over the fence. However this only comes back in the way of disease and death. Dealing with pollution creates jobs, advances technology, and to some degree makes for a better environment. We depend on science when it is just over 50% supportive of success yet when it is over 90% supportive of reducing pollution, can create an entire new industry, jobs, wealth, etc. some refuse because they just don’t like to be told by others. Those in denial of the need to be guided and told what to do are the problem. Society, social, socialist are all dirty words to those in denial. We are a society. We are inherently social. And, we are socialist. We are also stupid and hypocritical when we are socialist with the rich, bail them out, give them tax breaks, etc and leave the masses to ‘make it to the top’, the American dream. It is just that a dream. There are only a very few spots at the top. Everyone of those top spots would not exist if it were not for the masses, the workers, the true owners of the American dream. Those stupid enough to defend with every perverse ideal the rights of the 1% are the problem. The solution lies in turning a perverse ideological obsession into a productive advancement of humanity. But, I know that some of the 90% of the scientists that say we should curtail and reverse the effects of the use of fossil fuels can be found with mistakes in their arguments so following your logic we should look to the brilliant Jim Inhofe and the idiot Trump. Yup.
issac – you are being scammed. Wise up, they just want your money.
Keep up the good work!
So explain? Why are you defending the rights of the 1%. I assume you are speaking of Klein & Company. and not some biker gang though they both have one thing in common. .
issacbasonkavich – “It is easier and cheaper to throw your garbage over the fence. However this only comes back in the way of disease and death. Dealing with pollution creates jobs, ”
You are contradicting yourself. Dealing with pollution does not create jobs. It costs money and makes a process less efficient.
No contradictions here. Waste management is a foregone conclusion, for those of us who don’t throw their garbage over the fence. The issue is doing it well and as totally as possible. The extremes range from Africa, South America, and other places where on the outskirts of each village can be found huge rotting piles of everything from fruit and vegetable rinds mixed in with plastic wrappings to Denmark where almost everything is recycled and used. In the place with the rotting piles life is cheap, simple, and there are few jobs. In Denmark, life has value and there are well paid jobs taking care of trash. And, lots of people make buckets of money. There are those Americans that tend to admire Denmark and then there are those Americans who would just as soon live with the stink. Pick your spot.
I woudn’t pick San Jose, California on the one hand too much garbage on each side of the 101 or any place that thinks earth means ashtray. Since I didn’t want to live in an ashtray I did the right thing and left.
I believe I would stay right where I am which is where my house is at any particular time.
and as for global fuel subsidies the ethanol subsidy is the worst as it produces nothing needed at the cost of food production and prices and is subsidized although it takes a huge amount of fossil fuel to produce a gallon of ethanol and the subsidy goes to three major end users. Big AgriCorps, Big Fuel producers, and buying votes – though it didn’t work this time in the corn belt and now the rust belt —- did it?
I think this article is about creating fake news rather than about global warming per se.
Until the Climate Change advocates start using CO2 instead of using “carbon”, they will be a jock to me. It’s all about power and messaging. Carbon black, bad. CO2, is a non poisonous gas, but that doesn’t sound as bad.
We’re in the beginning of a 200 year (projected) mini ice age. How mini? The temps were expected to drop 1 deg C. on average. As for the ocean waters business “The El Nino or in Spanish El The Nino and it’s counterpart La Nina inhabiting the Southern Pacific ocean is the heat register of the world. It’s circular flow picks up water that is too warm and gives it a roaring 40’s cool down then back up the coast of South America. To a lesser extend so does the southern Atlantic.
All those bright red and yellow colors around the equator? Let’s see could it be maybe. Seasons change north to south and south to north but everything inside the InterTropical Convergence Zone 10 N to 10 S except during hurricane seasons retain two features. The days are fairly constant sunrise to sunset yiear round and the water is constantly warmed by the Sun. 12 hours a day.
Nothing new there. What is new is the amouont of money people willingly give up to make people like Al Bore and the Cutesey the Weather Babe very well off.
Personally I’d rather watch the Latina on the Mexico Weather Channel. That’s the ‘real’ things.
How do you get the Mexico Weather Channel?? Well… you know, for the perspective…
If you look at the original post there’s a photo of Kait the Weather Babe. It’s a video from U tube. Do that look to the right of the the utube and you’ll find the Mexico Weather Channel and bingo! That one’s better than what’s her name the blonde out of Los Angeles, CA.
Sexist comments…..showing your age, old boy.
Give the Climate Change advocates a taste of what they want and throw the switch already. December would be a good month for it. Turn off every “carbon-producing” plant, equipment, machine, etc. I’d say watch the stock market’s reaction but it would be shut down. Let’s see how prepared we are. Give them a one month notice and we’d soon realize we are no where ready for a return literally to the dark ages.
Breitbart’s rebuttal
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/12/07/weather-channel-attacks-breitbarts-climate-science-fake-news-climate-change/
The rebuttal substantively addresses and undermines the Weather Channels criticisms.
It is not like they hiding under a rock, embarrassed by being called out.
They are right there in the fray.
I have actually never seen a legitimate one-on-one debate of the issue with two well learned debaters in the field.
I have seen many times the Climate Change™ pundits repeatedly say they will not debate, because the debate is over, and that any such public conversations only serve to legitimize the global warming skeptics.
That is an interesting way to win, I am taking my ball home and no one can play, unless we play my way.
Nice touch on the trademark!
Precisely why there are so many ‘skeptics’ and ‘deniers’. They present over and over again the highly questionable “97% of all scientists agree” talking point – and all those who question it are mocked, shamed, intimidated, called out, their livlihoods threatened, their reputations destroyed and any reasonable discussion or debate is shut down. Why not have a full and open debate on the facts? Why the intimidation campaign? Hence the skepticism. Healthy skepticism is always a good thing.
And Obama leads the way:
https://www.barackobama.com/climate-change-deniers/#/
Obama says, “Find them and Call them out!”
That’s called intimidation, not persuasion.
How about a three on three debate? The late Michael Crichton, skeptical climatologist Richard Lindzen, and another skeptic debated Gavin Smith (the guy who took over for Hansen at NOAA GISS who constantly perverts the historical temperature record with adjustments to make the past cooler and the present warmer in order to create a warming trend) and two other scientists at an IQ2 debate in 2007. The issue debated was: “Global Warming Is Not a Crisis”. The audience voted the skeptics the winners. You need to block off a lot of time if you want to watch it. It is an hour and a half long.
http://www.michaelcrichton.com/state-of-fear/
Gavin Schmidt. Not Gavin Smith.
If you watch the brilliant documentary MERCHANTS OF DOUBT you’ll learn that historically climate deniers have used the same tactics that Big Tobacco used successfully for 50 years to deny a link between cigarettes and lung cancer.. Turns out the so called Climategate “emails from the paleo-climatologists” were in reality equivalent to the fake news that started Pizzagate. There was no there there.
Karl Friedrich – there was a lot of there there in those emails and further actions by Michael Mann and company have backed those emails up. He should have been fired from his university, but they covered for him. He was a grant machine. Now he is at a new university and they are covering for him.
Well, the Doctor said, in about 1977, “Time for your species to stop depending on a mineral slime and get a real energy source (or something to that effect).” I don’t like how climate change has garnered all the press while the release of plain old toxic substances is a more immediate threat.
Anyway, talk to your neighbors about energy from thorium.
slohrss29,
I try to explain LFT Reactors to anyone who will listen. PEople really need to look back at the history of how the nuclear power reactors got developed. It’s an interesting story and one where we went down the wrong path. Sodium reactor design was the way to go, but the DOD wanted the enriched Pu that light water reactors produced even though it is a inferior design.
I believe all our energy problems, as well as any legitimate complaint about carbon emissions, would be solved by instituting breeder reactors — nuclear reactors that can burn even 95% of ‘depleted’ uranium that is considered nuclear waste, as well as the 4x more available thorium.
We would have so much energy we wouldn’t know what to do with it, and the global warming alarmists would have nothing to complain about.
Nice to see you on here Gary. Yes, there are lots of solutions out there, but, as we know, the NRC (like the banks) would like to keep things like they are… keeping the club making money they are making without putting out new investment. Some of the stuff I’ve been reading points to the same problems in the nuclear industry as the banking industry–like softening laws in the face of mounting problems instead of actually fixing them. Bad enough when it’s your money, but when you have a budding supernova in your backyard, not really comparable.
Thorium reactors solve a lot of this volatility issue. Call up some local lawmaker dude, tell them they are fat, and tell them to support these energy initiatives.
On a different note, I can drive my car five minutes and look into a hideous open pit coal mine that is so deep you can wave to Satan as you pass. Cripes. We can do better–for maybe no other reason than we can do better.
Exactly. It’s an interesting story, but anytime when discussing it and you get to “fissionable material,” you kind of lose them. Or people think it’s a scam. As we know, it isn’t a scam. We were scammed! Since the infrastructure and waste are very minimal, the investment is in line and it doesn’t create the nasty overhead on the environment. Electrifying most energy needs, including autos would be the result of this process.
Haven’t heard from Issac, I’m sure he is the type who I address in the above paragraph. Already knows it’s bad, and that’s the end of the story.
It is even a win for the anti-nuke weapon people since they can burn the high grade “weapons” Pu. Once in the fuel system it is hard to extract out.
True it isn’t a scam since they had a sodium reactor working. But hey, what do they know, Jane Fonda made a movie and that is all that needs to be known.
Yep. Pretty well sums it up.
The reason most people recognize human-caused climate change as real and deadly, is because the supporting facts make sense to most people. Others are mentally blinded by their personal financial investment in fossil fuel. It has always provided the best returns on investment because it was allowed to use the earth’s environment as a private sewer free of charge. If fossil fuel companies were actually required to pay for the environmental damage they cause, there would be no financial return and hence no investors and no supporters.
You’re assuming that there is an “environmental damage”. Define damage? Humans are great at changing their environment so are most animals. I wonder if enviro weenies could afford their i-pads if they were required to pay the actual environmental damage caused in making them.
Water resources polluted by oil leaks, fertilizers, pesticides, sewage, pharmaceuticals, Fukushima leaks, are probably the most immediate damage. You’re right that almost everything we use every day is made from petroleum based plastics which we could not afford if the earth was not used as a free sewer for concentrated (by humans) toxins. That’s why we need to do whatever we can now to control the damage ASAP.
There is a difference between human created pollution, and human caused global warming.
Nobody denies humans detrimentally pollute the environment and that needs to be addressed.
To conflate the two is sophist.
Agreed! Yes, there is pollution. Yes, the climate is always and constantly changing. So is ‘global warming’ the same thing as ‘climate change’? The left is still trying to figure it out for themselves. It’s a scam.
Climate Change™ describes the actions of the climate when its average temperatures go up or down.
Global warming describes the actions of the climate when it gets warmer.
What used to be more descriptively called global warming, became too inconvenient when the globe refused to warm as predicted, so a brilliant marketing ploy was created fold its meaning into the more general Climate Change moniker, because no one can deny Climate Change.
I remember being taken to task when a strong supporter of this global warming stuff objected to me saying much the same thing. I put it down to trying to reframe and take control of the discussion by reframing., But glad to see others noticed. It shows how far you can trust anything they say. From the end of their tongue to the end of their nose., Which might be quite a distance maybe evena foot – the one that got stuck in their mouth.
GaryT,
There is a difference, but they may be related. I am holding out for more research. The soil microbiome can affect the atmosphere based on the respiration of the microbes–whether or not they release or sequester carbon dioxide, etc. Their abilities are based on soil health and how substances put on the earth affect them. Round-Up negatively affects plant-associated physiology (which is why it kills plants not protected by BT). Many bacteria have this same physiology. This is only one small factor into how pollution can affect the climate.
Just as what we ingest or are exposed to affect our microbiome, and, consequently, our health, the same goes for the earth. That is not the whole story (things we have nothing to do with–like the sun), but worth considering.
Just the facts please. Subjective fairy tales are great for non fiction and goal setting. Then comes the hard work. Sooooo just the facts. starting with ‘most people.’ Most means the great preponderance of the vast majority. It does not mean 48.2% of a vote that doesn’t count. – for example. And the rest of your statement. Just the facts with cites, sources and sites. I’ve learned to distrust those that say ‘most’ when they mean ‘some.’
In choosing Pruitt, Trump shows that he intends to wage war on clean air and clean water.
That should be the point we all should agree on. Why do you want to burn more coal when we should be investing heavily in solar and how to store that energy for overnight delivery. What is wrong with a clean environment?
We cannot meet our energy needs by solar and wind alone. That is a fact.
Solar takes huge amounts of water. Wind turbines have their drawbacks as well. Clean coal is the way to go.
New EPA chief is a proponent of natural gas and fracking. Oklahoma has had over 900 earthquakes just this year. Don’t think with him in charge clean coal is going anywhere. Natural gas has replaced coal.
Right. Clean coal, natural gas – and nuclear has a lot of potential to develop and use properly – ie, not as a weapon of destruction, but as a source of energy.
Nuclear seems to be done for and so is coal……frack frack frack
Maybe we will get Palin at Energy and then we can drill, drill, drill and frack, frack frack at the same time. What environment?
See comments about LTR technology.
Did I say we can meet our energy needs by solar and wind alone? I don’t think so, I re-read what I wrote and i am pretty sure that is not there. But what is wrong with using more Solar and working an a short term storage than mine and burn coal?
Nothing is wrong with working on it. But realizing the present limitations to replace another product is part of that. I’m one who made solar and wind work – unless of course it’s a windless cloudy day. which means extra battery banks. I’m running two banks at 235 amp hours reserve each off of a combined 200 watts at 6 plus amps out put solar panels thanks to people working on it.
Add to that a very efficient wind generator providing I’m getting a steady 10-15 knots any less it takes a long time to charge the batteries and any more we soon reach auto shutdown. Thanks to people working on it it has new $240 blades designed and made in Portugal
I have a number of electrical powered mechanisms and electronics and a huge amount of various lights. No heat no appliances except a very efficient chest freezer/cooler.
But here’s the down side. It serves my full time home which is 32′ long, 9.5′ at it’s widest point with one room shaped like a triangle and the other diminshes to 8′ wide at it’s ends.
It also provides me transportation using wind power and on rare occasions there is an efficient diesel auxilary. Now that will charge the banks fast because some people worked on designing a high output alternator.
It hauls everything i own and offers me ever changing scenery if I want it.
Ever try living in or really on something of that size?
Upside I have no automobile or truck, no house and it’s related costs, no lawn and no one calling up every five minutes during supper time nor does it have a TV with ear blasting stupid commercials and programs even more stupid.
But do have a laptop, 4 gigabytes of Music, 2 gigabytes of books, and 5 gigabytes of movies – good ones.
No popcorn.
It will house two with one sleeping and one on watch handling the sails…
It is the uiltimate latest in things people have worked on. But it won’t do for a city, or a town or a state or a nation.
To afford my floating house I subtracted the cost of all I left behind and just in time to escape the worst of 2008.
So it does one other thing. It provides security
Can your house in Podunk City, Wherever do that and on solar or wind power?
Not yet but you can weather proof it to make what you have work more efficiently and thus use less and have to pay for less energy off the grid
And you can switch to life at 12 volts.
Because people worked on it but in the meantime I’m a strong supporter of anthracite or hard coal and nuclear power with a kind eye on some of the other methods.
But you can’t afford that if you didn’t weather proof your home or business first. .
Paul makes good sense so the above was written in support – with caveats. What I do not support is the would, could, should pie in the sky solutions some accept as real only because they said it three times and really BELIEVE wishes are instantly real because they said it.
Trump does not intend to ‘wage war’ on clean air and water. What a ridiculous thing to say.
I agree. The hyperbole you point out certainly turns people away from any discussion that could be had if not for the charged language.
The Weather Channel just presented a series of facts based on numbers. The report this woman gave was based on satellite data, historical data and MATH. What’s “in the tank” about math? What’s more “fair and balanced” than science with evidence that can be cross-checked by anyone? Why does this even need to be argued??
Evan Gore – because they fudge the numbers and have been for years. We found this out when we got the emails from the paleo-climatologists. There are areas of the Earth with no thermometers so they just make up numbers they think will fit. And all the historical data is considered proprietary by Michael Mann, so you cannot get at the raw data, just his results. When you have bad numbers, you have bad results.
Paul, you really need to learn a little bit about how scientific research in general, and climate research in particular, is performed…
Some people prefer to live in ignorant bliss. Why? I don’t get it. Like I posted earlier, the data on global warming is absolutely conclusive, if you want to ague why this is happening, then please go ahead and make your case.
Ancel Keyes and company argued the same thing about cholesterol/fat causing heart disease. Turns out they were wrong.
The last I read, the climate models cannot take into account the effect the soil microbiome has on climate. If climate change is happening due to man-made causes, maybe pesticide, herbicide, and fertilizer companies should be targeted, as should companies that plow under wetlands. As it stands, they are not even part of the discussion.
Mike – I know a con game when I see it. What Michael Mann and his group are doing is not scientific research, it is just guessing.
Trump is a climate change denier so he picked one to head the EPA….,,nothing new here.
Nobody denies that climate changes.
Not in Obama’s world. He’s been using the left’s usual intimidation tactic to “Call them out” –to target and go after “the deniers” until they submit to believing what he wants them to believe:
https://www.barackobama.com/climate-change-deniers/#/
If anyone thinks Obama is going away after January 20, think again. The ‘left’ never sleeps.
Wow, great response Weather Channel. Hard to believe there are still so many people out there with their heads in the sand.
Lee – taking on Breitbart can cause you problems. Ask Kellogs.
The Weather Channel has been in the tank to the Climate Changer for some time. This blowback is to be expected. Do not expect the Weather Channel to be “fair and balanced.” They are not neutral.
There is no “balancing” to scientific fact.
Mike – there is when they are make s**t up.
It’s a circle of……snow flakes. Nice thing about snowflakes is they melt. except in the Alaskan Deserts, high peaks, and the Antarctic. Did you know Alaska had a desert?
So are you arguing the climate isn’t changing? Please. If you want to argue that global warming is not caused by man, go ahead, make your point, and please try to use some scientific arguments that make sense. If you want to argue that global warming is not happening…well good luck.
“The global food system is responsible for roughly 30 percent of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions – a major contributor for an increasingly unstable climate.
These GHG emissions are produced largely by converting land for agricultural use, particularly from converting forest into farmland for industrial palm oil plantations or the production of feed crops, like soy and corn.
Within the agricultural industry at large, the livestock sector is a major contributor to the emission of greenhouse gases, representing 14.5 percent of human-induced GHG emissions.
In addition to that, tropical deforestation and forest degradation are responsible for around 15 percent of global GHG emissions; commercial agriculture, largely for export markets, is the primary driver of tropical deforestation.”
-from FoodRevolution.Org
Paul – climate changes all the time and man doesn’t have a damn thing to do with it. Let me give you an example of the stupidity that abounds. I live in Phoenix, Arizona. Summers are very hot. It is not unusual for it to get to 112 degrees. The government wants to switch to different fuels so it will get to 111 degrees. From long experience, there is no difference to the system between 111 and 112 degrees. BTW, 300 miles of North Dakota interstate (happens to be very straight) is shut down because of snow. That has not happened in my lifetime and I am in my 70s.
Could you please give a reference to “The government wants to switch to different fuels so it will get to 111 degrees”?
Reverse what you said and you get ….snowflakes? For sure we are waiting expectently for facts that are later repudiated as made to fit the requirements of government research grants. But…you do better at reframing or trying to than most so you get an E for Effort instead of an F for factless. Hopefully the gravy train free ride will soon end and we can get back to serious environmental problems – besides Al Bore’s bank account.