ForecastTheFacts.Org

[superjames1992]

Thoughts?

http://forecastthefacts.org/

[PhillipS]

Thoughts?

http://forecastthefacts.org/

Seems to be an advocacy site rather than a science-based site. The only thing I saw that seemed unusual is that it targets denialist weathermen.

My initial reaction is that I'm as uncomfortable with this site as I am with pseudo-skeptical sites such as WUWT. I just want the science, not somebody telling me what I should think.

[LakeEffectKing]

Seems to be an advocacy site rather than a science-based site. The only thing I saw that seemed unusual is that it targets denialist weathermen.

My initial reaction is that I'm as uncomfortable with this site as I am with pseudo-skeptical sites such as WUWT. I just want the science, not somebody telling me what I should think.

Definitely is a politically charged site (Soros funded????)

[superjames1992]

Definitely is a politically charged site (Soros funded????)

It does appear to be associated with some politically-motivated sites/organizations.

http://wattsupwithth...climate-issues/

Not that Wattsupwiththat doesn't have it's own issues, but nevertheless...

[WeatherRusty]

The problem facing the American public with regard to climate change information is the vast majority rely on and trust the opinion of the only "scientist" they routinely allow to enter their TV rooms. The broadcast meteorologist on their local news can shape public opinion as well as anyone and probably more so than any other. Those mets have a reponsibility to report on the science and not their personal opinion.

In that spirit I signed on.

[WeatherRusty]

Seems to be an advocacy site rather than a science-based site. The only thing I saw that seemed unusual is that it targets denialist weathermen.

My initial reaction is that I'm as uncomfortable with this site as I am with pseudo-skeptical sites such as WUWT. I just want the science, not somebody telling me what I should think.

Of course it is an advocacy site. It advocates for an accurate dissemination of scientific information regarding the state of climate science. It does not target anyone, it seeks accountability from those to those who desire accuracy in reporting.

Who gives a rat's ass what John Coleman thinks? We want the science, not the opinion of those who oppose it.

[superjames1992]

The problem facing the American public with regard to climate change information is the vast majority rely on and trust the opinion of the only "scientist" they routinely allow to enter their TV rooms. The broadcast meteorologist on their local news can shape public opinion as well as anyone and probably more so than any other. Those mets have a reponsibility to report on the science and not their personal opinion.

In that spirit I signed on.

How is a TV meteorologist supposed to advocate climate change?

Is he supposed to say, "Today's high is 87 degrees. That's a record high for today as we continue to see a string of hot weather which could potentially be related to global warming..."

That would be a stupid thing to say as a string of hot weather does not necessarily prove or disprove AGW. I don't see many opportunities for TV mets to bring up the subject. They have a limited time and have to fit a lot in there already.

[donsutherland1]

I'm not sure that the site is very productive. Far from "shaming" those singled out, it might harden positions. When people feel that they are being "persecuted" or embarrassed, they often try to fight back, even when they are, in fact, in error. It might also lead to the climate change issue becoming even more politicized than it currently is e.g., shifting it further from science to a debate about free speech. Scientific merit would then be lost in the process.

Having said that, I believe a reasonable course for TV and broadcast meteorologists would involve doing the following when asked on air about climate change:

1. Make clear that they are not climatologists (when applicable).

2. Differentiate between meteorology and climatology/weather and climate.

3. Be able to provide a reasonable, general and concise synopsis of what the science has to say about climate change e.g., "The current scientific understanding is..." [that language avoids confusion with personal opinions].

4. Avoid taking positions that are not well supported by the scientific evidence, are matters of personal opinion not backed by the science, or are driven by non-scientific desires (political persuasion, efforts to be "fair" to the other side, ideology, etc.).

5. Be willing to mention that specialized climate-related questions are better raised with climatologists than meteorologists.

In short, they should provide the necessary disclaimers and stick to the science.

[superjames1992]

I'm not sure that the site is very productive. Far from "shaming" those singled out, it might harden positions. When people feel that they are being "persecuted" or embarrassed, they often try to fight back, even when they are, in fact, in error. It might also lead to the climate change issue becoming even more politicized than it currently is e.g., shifting it further from science to a debate about free speech. Scientific merit would then be lost in the process.

Having said that, I believe a reasonable course for TV and broadcast meteorologists would involve doing the following when asked on air about climate change:

1. Make clear that they are not climatologists (when applicable).

2. Differentiate between meteorology and climatology/weather and climate.

3. Be able to provide a reasonable, general and concise synopsis of what the science has to say about climate change e.g., "The current scientific understanding is..." [that language avoids confusion with personal opinions].

4. Avoid taking positions that are not well supported by the scientific evidence, are matters of personal opinion not backed by the science, or are driven by non-scientific desires (political persuasion, efforts to be "fair" to the other side, ideology, etc.).

5. Be willing to mention that specialized climate-related questions are better raised with climatologists than meteorologists.

In short, they should provide the necessary disclaimers and stick to the science.

Good points.

I think most meteorology programs include some climatology courses, but, nevertheless, meteorologists are certainly not experts on the subject (even if more knowledgeable than most).

I'm not sure if the meteorologists holding Mississippi State TV met degrees have to go through climatology courses, though (I don't mean this in a bad way).

[donsutherland1]

...and today at AMS, Bryan Norcross made this point--that climate change facts are not being communicated correctly to the public.

This is a key point, IMO.

I don't believe the trends in the polling are a coincidence. I suspect that the climate scientists are generally focused on their work and comfortable with the consensus on the big issues related to climate change. The message is clear in technical conferences and in papers.

On the other side, those taking a different stance are loudly advocating against the body of scientific work that has been completed (trying to raise doubts about the main findings even as the areas of uncertainty are narrower) and even those involved. They're participating in public forums, rather than technical conferences. They're having their views published in the general media, on blogs, etc., generally not the scientific literature. Their message is enjoying broader reach and that reach is having an impact.

At this point, I am beginning to believe that the climate scientists need to put together a sort of clearing house that would disseminate the basics of climate change to educators (where relevant e.g., those teaching science), the general public, policy makers, business leaders, economists (CO2 emissions are an externality), among others.

Scientific conferences and the scientific literature don't have a sufficiently broad audience to shape public opinion. Even as climate scientists are increasingly confident in the major findings related to the science, public recognition of those findings is eroding.

[WeatherRusty]

How is a TV meteorologist supposed to advocate climate change?

Is he supposed to say, "Today's high is 87 degrees. That's a record high for today as we continue to see a string of hot weather which could potentially be related to global warming..."

That would be a stupid thing to say as a string of hot weather does not necessarily prove or disprove AGW. I don't see many opportunities for TV mets to bring up the subject. They have a limited time and have to fit a lot in there already.

They don't have to advocate for anything. They are however voicing their opinion on the subject when they see fit to discredit the science. If they don't find relevance to climate change then why do they find it neccessary to comment on the subject at all? But, if they do then they should be true to the science and not their personal opinion.

Frankly, most mets have decided to do just that, say nothing even when there may be relevance to climate change. The issue is avoided like the plague for fear of opening a can of worms they and their employer would rather not deal with. Climate change is real, yet the public is not recieving hardly any accurate informaion, never mind the several mets who actively pronounce their opposition to the science.

[WeatherRusty]

This is a key point, IMO.

I don't believe the trends in the polling are a coincidence. I suspect that the climate scientists are generally focused on their work and comfortable with the consensus on the big issues related to climate change. The message is clear in technical conferences and in papers.

On the other side, those taking a different stance are loudly advocating against the body of scientific work that has been completed (trying to raise doubts about the main findings even as the areas of uncertainty are narrower) and even those involved. They're participating in public forums, rather than technical conferences. They're having their views published in the general media, on blogs, etc., generally not the scientific literature. Their message is enjoying broader reach and that reach is having an impact.

At this point, I am beginning to believe that the climate scientists need to put together a sort of clearing house that would disseminate the basics of climate change to educators (where relevant e.g., those teaching science), the general public, policy makers, business leaders, economists (CO2 emissions are an externality), among others.

Scientific conferences and the scientific literature don't have a sufficiently broad audience to shape public opinion. Even as climate scientists are increasingly confident in the major findings related to the science, public recognition of those findings is eroding.

Here is a good starting point for those interested in the latest general science research ( including much on climate) directly from the participating universities.

Futurity.org

[donsutherland1]

Here is a good starting point for those interested in the latest general science research ( including much on climate) directly from the participating universities.

Futurity.org

I agree. However, the basic problem is that the climate scientists rely on people to seek out the information. That requires an interest, a curiosity, and effort. That's a more restrained approach than that taken by the other side.

The other side "pushes" its message out. The message is loud. It is simple. It appeals to the human need to not be responsible for bad things e.g., "humans are not to blame for climate change." That's a far more powerful communications approach. It is also a more appealing and effective narrative, even if the basic premise is not supported by scientific evidence.

Unfortunately, so long as the climate scientists rely largely on "pull" vs. the other side's aggressive "push," the communications competition will favor the latter. The former will largely communicate with a narrow audience that already accepts the scientific consensus. The latter will appeal to a much broader audience for whom understanding of the climate change issue is not great.That the body of scientific evidence rests with the climate scientists and that the body of evidence has grown stronger is not a substitute for the need for more aggressive communication. It is no coincidence that even as scientific understanding related to climate change has continued to increase, public perceptions have shifted gradually but unmistakably in the other direction as seen in the polling. Public perceptions, of course, are key to sustainable public policy.

In the end, climate scientists are waging the communications battle with light infrantry so to speak (mostly through technical conferences, published work, and websites sought out by those who have an interest). The other side is resorting to air power so to speak in pushing a simple, repetitive, and appealing narrative to a vast audience. It's an uneven fight. The polling trends reflect that disparity.

[WeatherRusty]

I agree. However, the basic problem is that the climate scientists rely on people to seek out the information. That requires an interest, a curiosity, and effort. That's a more restrained approach than that taken by the other side.

The other side "pushes" its message out. The message is loud. It is simple. It appeals to the human need to not be responsible for bad things e.g., "humans are not to blame for climate change." That's a far more powerful communications approach. It is also a more appealing and effective narrative, even if the basic premise is not supported by scientific evidence.

Unfortunately, so long as the climate scientists rely largely on "pull" vs. the other side's aggressive "push," the communications competition will favor the latter. The former will largely communicate with a narrow audience that already accepts the scientific consensus. The latter will appeal to a much broader audience for whom understanding of the climate change issue is not great.That the body of scientific evidence rests with the climate scientists and that the body of evidence has grown stronger is not a substitute for the need for more aggressive communication. It is no coincidence that even as scientific understanding related to climate change has continued to increase, public perceptions have shifted gradually but unmistakably in the other direction as seen in the polling. Public perceptions, of course, are key to sustainable public policy.

In the end, climate scientists are waging the communications battle with light infrantry so to speak (mostly through technical conferences, published work, and websites sought out by those who have an interest). The other side is resorting to air power so to speak in pushing a simple, repetitive, and appealing narrative to a vast audience. It's an uneven fight. The polling trends reflect that disparity.

Very well stated and accurate to the tee IMO.

The problem is the "other side" has all the bases covered. If the scientists speak out or push they are marginalized as "alarmists", trivialized, demonized and worse.

[hurricaneschwartz]

Interesting discussion. Let me tell you a story, as a TV met. And it scared the hell out of me.

I went to an AMS Broadcast Conference years ago, after a period of extremely warm weather. They have various vendors there, and one of them was from a company called ICECAP. The man at the booth was Joe D'Aleo, who I knew from my days at The Weather Channel (he is one of the creators of ICECAP). I was curious to see what they were handing out to the TV mets.

Immediately after saying hello, he said (approximately) "I see you were correlating the extreme warmth with global warming on your station." He does not live in my TV market. How did he know what I said on a single broadcast? I had shown a global temperature anomaly map for the previous month, and about 80% of the world had positive anomalies, with virtually NO negative anomalies. I remember commenting that the warmth wasn't just local-it was worldwide. There was no "alarmist" comment that went along with that FACT.

Some of these people are watching us. They are trying to squash any attempt at explaining the science on-air or on blogs. It's about time some organization called attention to some of the OPINION-related "skeptics" on local TV and even on networks (have you ever heard some of the CNN mets?)

Glenn

[donsutherland1]

Interesting discussion. Let me tell you a story, as a TV met. And it scared the hell out of me.

I went to an AMS Broadcast Conference years ago, after a period of extremely warm weather. They have various vendors there, and one of them was from a company called ICECAP. The man at the booth was Joe D'Aleo, who I knew from my days at The Weather Channel (he is one of the creators of ICECAP). I was curious to see what they were handing out to the TV mets.

Immediately after saying hello, he said (approximately) "I see you were correlating the extreme warmth with global warming on your station." He does not live in my TV market. How did he know what I said on a single broadcast? I had shown a global temperature anomaly map for the previous month, and about 80% of the world had positive anomalies, with virtually NO negative anomalies. I remember commenting that the warmth wasn't just local-it was worldwide. There was no "alarmist" comment that went along with that FACT.

Some of these people are watching us. They are trying to squash any attempt at explaining the science on-air or on blogs. It's about time some organization called attention to some of the OPINION-related "skeptics" on local TV and even on networks (have you ever heard some of the CNN mets?)

Glenn

Thanks Glenn for sharing this account. It is a chilling one.

I, for one, am not a fan of the ICECAP site. The most recent CO2, GISS, UAH chart is one example of the issues I encounter on the site:

http://icecap.us/ima..._versus_CO2.jpg

Those who view the chart with its short timeframe would conclude that the atmospheric concentration of CO2 has risen dramatically while temperature anomalies have remained essentially flat. The problem is that if one goes to the actual data and standardizes things (even without smoothing), for that timeframe, one finds:

- CO2 atmospheric concentration has increased just under 6%

- The GISS dataset shows a temperature anomaly increase of just under 11%

- The UAH dataset shows a temperature anomaly increase of just over 36%

Moreover, the temperature anomalies have registered such an increase despite consecutive years with La Niña conditions.

In short, if ICECAP used scales that were reasonably comparable, the graph would present an entirely different picture: Both datasets had increases in temperature anomalies that exceeded the increase in atmospheric CO2 during the timeframe measured.

[donsutherland1]

Don--you raise a number of excellent points which are being addressed, albeit slowly. I will respond in more detail tomorrow.

Thanks Wxtrix. I look forward to it.

[donsutherland1]

Very well stated and accurate to the tee IMO.

The problem is the "other side" has all the bases covered. If the scientists speak out or push they are marginalized as "alarmists", trivialized, demonized and worse.

Thanks WeatherRusty.

The labeling is a real problem. It's not unexpected, as they lack significant scientific evidence on which to base their case. I don't believe anything short of a professional public relations strategy has much chance to overcome some of those techniques in the near- and even medium-term.

[easternsnowman]

Alot of us conservative don't deny there is increasing warmth, I could tell just looking at the temps and comparing them to the so called average temps over the years. My main problem is that these climate scientists want to limit our economic growth and redistribute wealth to the poorer nations....sounds like socialism! I heard there are ways to limit or even reverse the trends such as cooling the oceans as well as the atmosphere which can help block the sun to some extent by having sulphur put into it.. Why not think in those terms instead of limiting co2 and harming our country and stop us from drilling for more oil and gas, besides I don't believe China or India will limit their growth!

[TerryM]

This link is to a great resource for countering disinformation.

http://thinkprogress.org/green/2011/11/29/377739/must-read-the-denier-debunking-handbook/

[Sickman]

Alot of us conservative don't deny there is increasing warmth, I could tell just looking at the temps and comparing them to the so called average temps over the years. My main problem is that these climate scientists want to limit our economic growth and redistribute wealth to the poorer nations....sounds like socialism! I heard there are ways to limit or even reverse the trends such as cooling the oceans as well as the atmosphere which can help block the sun to some extent by having sulphur put into it.. Why not think in those terms instead of limiting co2 and harming our country and stop us from drilling for more oil and gas, besides I don't believe China or India will limit their growth!

Okay... One, this post is more political than CC, and we're not going down that road in here. And two, we'd rather stick to factual science in here, not some half-baked weather control ideas that have no basis in reality.

I'm not trying to discourage participation... just want to keep the discussion in here at a higher level.

[donsutherland1]

Wxtrix,

I completely agree with you about the communications hurdle. Getting the information to the general public is one aspect of the overall problem. I believe it is also an important and urgent communications challenge to translate the hard science into a framework that is readily understood by the general public.

I'm encouraged to learn what you mentioned about the AMS meeting. An examination of words and expressions that work best in effectively conveying the science to the general public is important. Given the diversity in the educational background, scientific literacy, etc., of the general public, multiple approaches might be required to target different audiences within the broader public.

Finally I strongly agree with you about the importance of direct outreach to the public. Ultimately, an informed public will be key to shaping policy and also the individual choices that define the nation's overall response to the climate change issue. The kind of book you describe would be invaluable and I wish you success in your effort to help make it happen.

[LocoAko]

The climate change communication talks are always some of my favorite talks at the AMS.

I had a chance to meet Susan Hassol this past summer, director of Climate Communication (www.climatecommunication.org). Among other things, they aim to give the public a clear and broken-down primer on climate change. I can only hope work like hers reaches a widespread audience. Here's the primer, for example -- http://climatecommunication.org/climate/introduction/

[Vergent]

Alot of us conservative don't deny there is increasing warmth, I could tell just looking at the temps and comparing them to the so called average temps over the years. My main problem is that these climate scientists want to limit our economic growth and redistribute wealth to the poorer nations....sounds like socialism! I heard there are ways to limit or even reverse the trends such as cooling the oceans as well as the atmosphere which can help block the sun to some extent by having sulphur put into it.. Why not think in those terms instead of limiting co2 and harming our country and stop us from drilling for more oil and gas, besides I don't believe China or India will limit their growth!

China is spending:

$150,000,000,000 on high speed electric rail.

$22,000,000,000 on the Three Gorges Dam.

They plan to have 1,800 megawatts of solar by 2020

In 2010, China became the largest wind energy provider worldwide, with the installed wind power capacity reaching 41.8 GW"...

As part of the environmental goals included in China’s 12th Five Year Plan (2011 – 2015) targets have been set for non-fossil energy to account for 11.4% of the total energy consumption, and for CO2 discharge per unit of GDP to reduce by 17%.

China has a responsible plan to reduce its emissions Using china as an excuse to continue business as usual is such a lie. A lie paid for by Exxon. Also, since when did infrastructure spending limit economic growth?

[rygar]

China is spending:

$150,000,000,000 on high speed electric rail.

$22,000,000,000 on the Three Gorges Dam.

They plan to have 1,800 megawatts of solar by 2020

China has a responsible plan to reduce its emissions Using china as an excuse to continue business as usual is such a lie. A lie paid for by Exxon. Also, since when did infrastructure spending limit economic growth?

I for one will only give china the credit you seem to give them after their come through on their plan.

Even with the three above, they would still worlds #1 contributor in emissions.

[rygar]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/01/25/new-emissions-data-dampen-global-warming-fears/

Moreover, U.S. emissions restrictions would have no real-world climate impact. China alone emits more carbon dioxide than the entire Western Hemisphere combined. Chinese emissions are rising at a pace of roughly 10% per year and have more than doubled since 2000. China alone is responsible for 75% of the growth in global emissions since 2000. Even if the United States completely and immediately eliminated all carbon dioxide emissions, in less than a decade China would add more new emissions than what the United States eliminated. Importantly, China has insisted over and over again that it will not accept carbon dioxide restrictions regardless of what the United States and the rest of the world does.

And an interesting point I didn't realize

U.S. carbon dioxide emissions continue to track lower than year 2000 levels, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) reported on Monday, extending this century’s downward trend in U.S. emissions. The new data rebut assertions that the United States needs to impose new restrictions on coal-fired power plants and other sources of carbon dioxide emissions.

[WeatherRusty]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/01/25/new-emissions-data-dampen-global-warming-fears/

And an interesting point I didn't realize

Quite the problem we have on our hands wouldn't you agree?

[Vergent]

http://www.forbes.co...-warming-fears/

And an interesting point I didn't realize

We are setting such a good example.

[superjames1992]

We are setting such a good example.

It's not all in black and white, though.

Per capita GDP (IMF 2011):

USA: $48,147

Australia: $40,836

Canada: $40,457

Germany: $37,935

Great Britain: $35,974

Japan: $34,367

South Korea: $31,753

Italy: $30,165

Russia: $16,687

China: $8,394

India: $3,703

EDIT: Also note that the three highest per capita emission countries are not only the top three in GDP, but the USA, Canada, and Australia are also rather large countries and, as such, their citizens will likely have to do more driving than in other countries. Also, note that public transportation in Canada, the USA, or Australia is not nearly as developed as Europe (and frankly isn't as practical due to the lesser population density of each country).

[superjames1992]

Per Capita GDP per Ton of CO2 Emissions:

Italy: $13115

Great Britain: $12847

Germany: $12645

India: $12343

Japan: $11456

South Korea: $10584

USA: $8025

Australia: $7853

Canada: $7224

China: $6457

Russia: $5057