Climate Activists Are Taking Over Your Local Weather Forecast – Propaganda now being fed into weather forecasting

“Amber Sullins gets a minute or two to tell up to two million people about some extremely complicated science, using the tools of her trade: a pleasant voice, a green screen, and small icons denoting sun, clouds, rain, and wind. She is the chief meteorologist at ABC15 News in Phoenix, so her forecasts mostly call for sunshine.
Within this brief window, however, Sullins sometimes manages to go beyond the next five days. Far beyond.
“We know climate change could affect everything about the way we live in the future, from agriculture and tourism to productivity and local business,” she once noted. “But at what cost?”
Denialism is “an American phenomenon,” says veteran Miami weatherman John Morales, who is now at NBC 6. “This is not something you see around the world.”
There are about 500 broadcasters like Sullins and Morales, who each receive regular data dumps and ready-to-use graphics from Climate Matters, an organization whose mission is to turn TV meteorologists into local climate educators. The program was founded in 2010 by Climate Central, a research-and-journalism nonprofit, with help from George Mason University, the American Meteorological Society, and others.
Newscasters who participate are sent possible topics for climate-related segments every week, with TV-ready data and graphics pegged to large-scale meteorological events, such as unusually high heat or precipitation, local trends, or seasonal themes.
“Well, Santa’s elves are dealing with a little bit of a heat wave now at the North Pole,” Sullins told viewers on Dec. 22, following an outline provided by Climate Matters. “It’s 50 degrees above average up there.” She showed an on-screen graphic with cartoons showing Santa Claus in increasing states of thermal distress. At the bottom of the graphics appear a Climate Central logo and the source of the scientific data—in this case, temperature records and projections from NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and a European atmospheric-science consortium.
“Local TV news wouldn’t exist any more if it weren’t for the weathercasts,” says Ed Maibach, director of George Mason University’s Center for Climate Change Communication.
Remember them? Jagadish Shukla et al? Paul Homewood had a close look at Maibach here:

Gutfeld Slams Bill Nye: March For Science Was Really ‘March for Silence’

Gutfeld criticized Nye for saying on a CNN panel that the network should not have allowed a global warming skeptic to join the debate.

“You can’t even have one scientist on to question a comedian who got his degree in mechanical engineering,” he said.

“He’s mocking skepticism which is the spine behind the scientific method.” Gutfeld added.

Gutfeld said the Earth Day marches held over the weekend would be better described as “march[es] for silence” rather than “march[es] for science.”…

‘March for Science’ invokes God, Hitler, Gay Marriage, Racism, Sexism – Blames GOP for making climate worse

Climate Depot’s Round Up of Coverage of the alleged ‘March For Science’

Climate Depot’s Marc Morano: “Having spent the day in DC on April 22 interviewing the marchers, it struck me about how this is first and foremost a march for endless government funding, ideology and in support of a no dissent policy. (Another new study gives plenty of reason to dissent: New Climate Study Calls EPA’s Labeling Of CO2 A Pollutant ‘Totally False’) The Trump administration can help make science great again by resisting these pay up and shut up demands for taxpayer research money.” See: Bloomberg News: Obama ‘stashed’ $77 billion in ‘climate money’ across agencies to elude budget cuts

Watch: Princeton Physicist Dr. Will Happer criticizes ‘March for Science’: ‘It is sort of a religious belief for them’ – Dr. Will Happer on Fox News: Asked about more government funded science?  Happer: “We’ve had 8 years of very highly politicized so-called research on climate. It’s not what most of us would recognize as real scientific research. Something where the outcome was demanded before the funding was provided. We should tend to real environmental problems and fix them and stop chasing these phantom problems that are really just religious dogma.”

Watch CNN Debate: Bill Nye blows gasket when a real scientist Dr. Will Happer schools him on ‘climate change’


Pictures and reports about the ‘March for Science’

‘March for Science’: Politics Disguised as Science: When to Doubt a Scientific ‘Consensus’ – The early claims of 97% ‘consensus’: In 1992, former Vice President Al Gore reassured his listeners, “Only an insignificant fraction of scientists deny the global warming crisis. The time for debate is over. The science is settled.”

Climatologist Dr. Roger A. Pielke Sr: “If there was any doubt the “March on Science” is political – The march is explicitly a political movement” See full article

Science March 2

Anti-Trump ‘March For Science’ Protest Has Problems W/ Bill Nye Because He’s A White Guy

13 Most Ridiculous Predictions Made on Earth Day, 1970

March For Science To Bill Nye, The Science Guy: Take A Back Seat, You’re White.

Gender strudies

Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry rips ‘march for science’ as ‘a self-serving navel gazing exercise for scientists’ — A ‘we don’t like Trump’ tantrum

The March is over: 

Prof. Roger Pielke Jr.: ‘The smartest people on the planet want to oppose Trump & the best they can come up with


While we thank CBS News for including us in its Earth Day coverage, the clips from the interview they used and their manner of presenting them reveal the network’s continued bias against sound science and economics in the climate change debate. We had hoped for better. Here are some things we think were especially unfair:

  • The opening sentence of the feature has a host saying “they call themselves ‘climate realists,’” as though the term were new, made up, or not in general use. It might be new to CBS reporters, but we and other groups and individuals have been using it for many years (see here, here, here, and here) to distinguish our views from “alarmists” who make no secret that they are using rhetoric and even “myths” to frighten the public into adopting their political agenda.
  • Reporter Dean Reynolds says The Heartland Institute works out of “this office park” in Arlington Heights, Illinois. The image shown is of our building… we own and fill the entire 13,000 s.f. building with more than 30 staff plus interns, a public meeting space, and research library. We’re proud of our new headquarters.
  • Reynolds contrasts Joseph Bast’s views on climate change with “scientists” and is careful to point out that “Bast is not a scientist.” True, and Bast acknowledged that prior to the interview, during the interview, and many times in past interviews. But Bast has co-edited four volumes in the Climate Change Reconsidered series summarizing and citing thousands of peer-reviewed studies on climate change, a series so highly regarded it has been cited more than 100 times in peer-reviewed articles and was translated into Chinese and published by the Chinese Academy of Science. He has been publisher of Environment & Climate News for twenty years. He understands the issue and is qualified to write and speak on it.
  • Reynolds, who admitted during the interview that “I don’t know the science,” claims Bast’s views are “dismissed … as propaganda for fossil fuels” by scientific and government entities. In fact, thousands of scientists, possibly most scientists in the world, agree with Bast (see here, here, here, and here). Moreover, most independent conservative and libertarian think tanks in the world have endorsed climate realism. Nearly 100 of them have cosponsored one or more of The Heartland Institute’s conferences on climate change,

Neil deGrasse Tyson: Elected Science Deniers Are a Threat to Democracy

Bill Nye, Barack Obama, and Neil DeGrasse Tyson selfie

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Neil deGrasse Tyson has claimed that the refusal of the Trump administration to bow to every scientific demand presented to politicians is a threat to democracy.

Neil deGrasse Tyson says science deniers in White House are a profound threat to democracy

The scientist spoke out as thousands around the world prepare to march

One of America’s most influential and popular scientists has issued a stark warning over what he termed the Trump administration’s rejection of science – saying it is a threat to the country’s “informed democracy”.

Neil deGrasse Tyson, host of the StarTalk podcast and TV show and director of the Hayden Planetarium at the American Museum of Natural History, said when he grew up, the US had relied on science to drive its innovation. But no longer.

“People have lost the ability to judge what is true and what is not, what is reliable, what is not reliable,” he says in a video posted on Facebook. “That’s not the country I remember growing up in. I don’t remember any other time where people were standing in denial of what science was.”

Read more:

In my opinion, the problem with people like Tyson is they think they have a monopoly on being right. And there are a lot of reasons for thinking Tyson is not right about everything.

Climate Science in particular has an atrocious track record of failed predictions, dating all the way back to James Hansen’s exaggerated Scenario A.

‘March for Science’: Politics Disguised as Science: When to Doubt a Scientific ‘Consensus’

By JAY RICHARDS Published on April 19, 201799 Comments

This week’s March for Science is odd. Marches are usually held to defend something that’s in peril. Does anyone really think big science is in danger? The mere fact that the March was scheduled for Earth Day betrays what the event is really about: politics. The organizers admitted as much early on, though they’re now busy trying to cover the event in sciencey camouflage.

If past is prologue, expect to hear a lot about the supposed “consensus” on catastrophic climate change this week. The purpose of this claim is to shut up skeptical non-scientists.

How should non-scientists respond when told about this consensus? We can’t all study climate science. But since politics often masquerades as science, we need a way to tell one from the other.

“Consensus,” according to Merriam-Webster, means both “general agreement” and “group solidarity in sentiment and belief.” That sums up the problem. Is this consensus based on solid evidence and sound logic, or social pressure and groupthink?

When can you doubt a consensus? Your best bet is to look at the process that produced, defends and transmits the supposed consensus.

Anyone who has studied the history of science knows that scientists are prone to herd instincts. Many false ideas once enjoyed consensus. Indeed, the “power of the paradigm” often blinds scientists to alternatives to their view. Question the paradigm, and some respond with anger.

We shouldn’t, of course, forget the other side of the coin. There are cranks and conspiracy theorists. No matter how well founded a scientific consensus, there’s someone who thinks it’s all hokum. Sometimes these folks turn out to be right. But often, they’re just cranks whose counsel is best ignored.

So how do we distinguish, as Andrew Coyne puts it, “between genuine authority and mere received wisdom? And how do we tell crankish imperviousness to evidence from legitimate skepticism?” Do we have to trust whatever we’re told is based on a scientific consensus unless we can study the science ourselves? When can you doubt a consensus? When should you doubt it?

Your best bet is to look at the process that produced, defends and transmits the supposed consensus. I don’t know of any complete list of signs of suspicion. But here’s a checklist to decide when you can, even should, doubt a scientific “consensus,” whatever the subject.

CNN criticized on Earth Day for daring to air a climate skeptic

There was a certain melancholy about Earth Day 2017. The decades of failed predictions of doom, those damn frackers giving us cheap gas back, and now the Trump administration cutting regulations. No wonder some of the front men are getting a little testy.

Like Bill Nye, the guy who doesn’t have a science degree. Matthe Balan ofMediaite caught him revealing his inner authoritarian:

TV personality Bill Nye criticized CNN on New Day Saturday for letting a skeptic of man-made climate change participate in a panel discussion.

“I will say, much as I love CNN, you’re doing a disservice by having one climate change skeptic, and not 97 or 98 scientists or engineers concerned about climate change,” Nye contended.

Nye appeared with May Boeve of the green action group and Princeton University physics professor William Happer, who has downplayed the impact of carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. So despite the two-to-one slant in favor of the environmentalists, the former PBS host wasn’t satisfied.

The message of the American Left has devolved into “shut up!”

Warmist Michael Mann at ‘March for Science’: ‘Science & scientists are now under attack in this country’

Mann is marching because “Science and scientists are now under attack in this country.” He should know. Mann is one of the favorite targets of climate deniers, as evidenced most recently by a hearing of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology at which he was the only witness representing the mainstream view that climate change is the result of human activity.

“When congressional Republicans are denying basic science,” Mann said, “and the Trump administration — run largely by polluting interests — is trying to revoke policies to protect our health and our environment, more than ever we need to hear the voices of scientists, loudly and clearly.”…