This is a loaded statement coming from a guy who works in television, but here goes: I hate the media sometimes.
And as a meteorologist, another one that doesn't seem logical: I hate talking about climate change.
We've gotten to the point in the social discussion of climate and related policy that it takes more time to wade through the bias and rhetoric just to get down to the pure science. And any comment I make (or anyone, for that matter) on the subject is immediately dissected for an agenda one way or the other.
A good example is a FOX News piece that we aired on our morning show on Tuesday. Overall, reporter James Rosen presented some good scientific information in an objective manner. But, he tried to achieve balance by using a biased source on each side who only contributed the "party line" commentary:
-------------------------------------
Tim Phillips/Americans for Prosperity: "Al Gore and his friends -- it's a good thing that they changed the name of their movement from "global warming" to "climate change," because they would look more out of touch than they do today... "
Bob Deans/Natural Resources Defense Council: "There is an enormous body of evidence that says that the climate is warning, that the planet is warming, and that's being caused by the burning of fossil fuels."
-------------------------------------
It's no wonder that people get confused about the state of the science. And that includes the scientists! Accusations of data manipulation, research funded by special interests, et al. do nothing to advance our understanding of global climate systems.
And that's the fundamental problem: We still need to advance our understanding. There's always more than meets the eye when it comes to weather and climate. But for every new study that comes out, the media and pundits are quick to jump to conclusions about whether it "proves" or "disproves" climate change theory, when in truth no such thing is likely, or perhaps even possible.
-------------------------------------
Here's a perfect example that was forwarded to me:
"The Mini Ice Age Starts Here" - Daily Mail (UK)
This article takes a legitimate study by a well-respected voice on the subject and twists it to a completely invalid conclusion.
The study itself is about how weather patterns may be influenced over the course of decades by changes in subsurface ocean temperatures. The statement from its summary reads, "Our results suggest that global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming."
Where does that call for an ice age? As this NPR interview with the author describes, he still feels the earth will warm in the long term. At the same time, research like this shows that climate models (and those who project imminent global catastrophe based on those models) aren't showing us the whole story.
Here's a much more objective article about the same researcher.
As I've discussed before, it's just another example of why you can't believe everything you read. Unless you're looking at the raw scientific articles (and sometimes even those are lacking), chances are there's someone with an agenda filtering the information. That goes for any politicized subject, but in my position, I'll stick with the climate discussion for now... :-)
I welcome your thoughts via e-mail.
And as a meteorologist, another one that doesn't seem logical: I hate talking about climate change.
We've gotten to the point in the social discussion of climate and related policy that it takes more time to wade through the bias and rhetoric just to get down to the pure science. And any comment I make (or anyone, for that matter) on the subject is immediately dissected for an agenda one way or the other.
A good example is a FOX News piece that we aired on our morning show on Tuesday. Overall, reporter James Rosen presented some good scientific information in an objective manner. But, he tried to achieve balance by using a biased source on each side who only contributed the "party line" commentary:
-------------------------------------
Tim Phillips/Americans for Prosperity: "Al Gore and his friends -- it's a good thing that they changed the name of their movement from "global warming" to "climate change," because they would look more out of touch than they do today... "
Bob Deans/Natural Resources Defense Council: "There is an enormous body of evidence that says that the climate is warning, that the planet is warming, and that's being caused by the burning of fossil fuels."
-------------------------------------
It's no wonder that people get confused about the state of the science. And that includes the scientists! Accusations of data manipulation, research funded by special interests, et al. do nothing to advance our understanding of global climate systems.
And that's the fundamental problem: We still need to advance our understanding. There's always more than meets the eye when it comes to weather and climate. But for every new study that comes out, the media and pundits are quick to jump to conclusions about whether it "proves" or "disproves" climate change theory, when in truth no such thing is likely, or perhaps even possible.
-------------------------------------
Here's a perfect example that was forwarded to me:
"The Mini Ice Age Starts Here" - Daily Mail (UK)
This article takes a legitimate study by a well-respected voice on the subject and twists it to a completely invalid conclusion.
The study itself is about how weather patterns may be influenced over the course of decades by changes in subsurface ocean temperatures. The statement from its summary reads, "Our results suggest that global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming."
Where does that call for an ice age? As this NPR interview with the author describes, he still feels the earth will warm in the long term. At the same time, research like this shows that climate models (and those who project imminent global catastrophe based on those models) aren't showing us the whole story.
Here's a much more objective article about the same researcher.
As I've discussed before, it's just another example of why you can't believe everything you read. Unless you're looking at the raw scientific articles (and sometimes even those are lacking), chances are there's someone with an agenda filtering the information. That goes for any politicized subject, but in my position, I'll stick with the climate discussion for now... :-)
I welcome your thoughts via e-mail.
Leave a comment