The requirements to be a TV weather presenter are fairly slack: an undergraduate degree with some training in meteorology is preferred, but not required, and the main skills seem to be looking presentable with nice hair, being able to dance with a green screen, and being glib and cheerful. So I guess it’s not surprising that the “scientists” leading the charge against global warming are climate-denier TV weathermen. That link takes you to a long list of quotes from various television weather personalities — including a couple from Minneapolis — who all deny reality and use their position as frontmen pretending to be scientists to delude the public. Take a look and see if your local television station has a conspiracy nut doing the weather.
Another interesting aside in that article is that all of the current Republican candidates for president are climate change deniers. Every single one. Huntsman was the only exception, and he’s out.
That prompted me to look at the two front-runners positions on evolution.
Mitt Romney, the conservative establishment candidate, is a theistic evolutionist. He argues that evolution was the tool god used to create humans (“How?” I always wonder — evolution isn’t a railroad track in which you can put a car at one end and expect it to arrive at the other). He also opposed teaching intelligent design creationism while governor of Massachusetts, which is good news — I wonder if it’ll be used in attack ads against him? So on this one narrow issue, Romney is tolerable. On everything else the corporate plastic robot would never get my vote.
Newt Gingrich is the crackpot tea party candidate and is getting progressively wackier as the campaign goes on. While he made more vaguely moderate statements about evolution a few years ago, now that he’s courting the ignorant wackaloon vote, he’s sounding more like a member of the Insane Clown Posse.
I think we can safely say that no Republican should be allowed anywhere near the reins of government. They’re anti-science through and through.
(Also on Sb)
No, Newt, it’s your thoughts that are random, not evolution.
But the guy thinks that there were founders who didn’t believe in God? If there were, I don’t think any dared to say so, including Paine. Enough of them didn’t believe in religion, though.
Glen Davidson
The “captions” are more than a wee bit distracting…
Fans (ahem) of Gingrich might want to put this nifty new sticker on their car:
“America is my wife now”
There’s no chance of me voting republican, but choosing this year’s republican candidate seems like choosing which STD you want.
Newt won the SC primary last night.
In a worst case scenario, he could be our first vaguely humanoid toad president.
The fundies aren’t looking too powerful here. Newt is an apostate and a member of the church of satan, the Fake xian Catholic church (according to the fundies). They couldn’t even find one of their own that could stop babbling and gibbering like an idiot for 5 minutes or stop scaring the kids and pets.
It’s even worse. While he is undeniably biologically human, his essence is decidely toadlike.
He is a member of the Insane Clown Posse. He was in the debates, he even won the last…
Oh, you mean the band.
If Newt wins the presidency, which part of the Gulag is he going to put all those federal judges he plans on arresting?
Probably the one next to the facility where all the scientists ended up.
It’s too bad, Arnold Toynbee isn’t alive. According to him, 22 cvilizations ended and 19 of those committed suicide. We seem close to making it 23 and 20.
@Irene #3
So Newt Gingrich is really Papa Lazarou? … Nah, I can’t even act surprised.
BTW, if you’re still confused by my last comment, there’s this …
A few years ago Gingrich said “I believe evolution should be taught as science, and intelligent design should be taught as philosophy.”
Intelligent design should be taught as bullshit, but this was not bad for a Republican.
The people here who don’t much care for Republicans need to worry because Gingrich, if he is successful in Florida on January 31st, is likely to win the nomination. He is an excellent debater as was shown by the three standing ovations he received in the past two debates. He could win the election in November.
My fav local weather dude does actually have a degree in meteorology and he has publically said that climate change denial is unacceptable.
Anyway, Newt scares the shit out of me. They all do, actually.
As an outsider, a Canadian Baptard minister’s son now recovering on a mountainside in B.C., it seems to me that Gingrich was obviously going to win SC because he is a member of the RC Church, not the very best Baptist to be sure but at least not a cult member like Romney in his Mormonism. I thought, to myself, while climbing a southern draw near Westwold B.C. yesterday, Gingrich will easily win this one…. it is a very simple choice like that religious one regarding abortion. Does the candidate have a name I can remember in the voting booth and is he (well, it should be a HE) anti-baby killing? Then he has my vote and God’s vote too. Politics is not complicated…. rocky draws are complicated…
I should add that my thoughts were partially the result of having read an article in the New York Times that said at least 60% of South Carolina would refer to themselves as evangelical Christian… how could they support a Morman mon man….? Vote for a cult? Next thing you know, we’ll be aborting babies and doing other evil stuff. The devil is a smart guy… might even run a school, they say…
I should add that my thoughts were partially the result of having read an article in the New York Times that said at least 60% of South Carolina would refer to themselves as evangelical Christian…
@11 – The forecasters for the BBC are employed by the Met Office. IIRC correctly, most ITV companies/regions also mostly used professionals at least until the mid-1980s. As a kid, I found there was always something reassuring that the BBC weatherbod had prepared the summary themselves rather than just being an autocue reader.
@14 – SC is the nurturing home of Bob Jones University.
@14
Meanwhile, you might want to check out your bash-hat. Wouldn’t be surprised if you found a large dent in it.
I’m shocked. Geoff Fox of WTIC in Hartford is a climate-change denialist. But he comes across as sincere on the T&V. He’s so cheerful in the morning. He has such good hair!
My TV weatherman simply ignores the issue, except occasionally to point out that a particular storm can’t be traced to global warming (which is, of course, correct, but it would be nice if he would explain that a bit – providing he understands it). Mostly they spend all their time crowing about the great warm weather we’re having this year, and how they wish all years were like this.
As for being a “theistic evolutionist”, I think we should drop that term in favor of “evolutionary creationist”. That is more accurate if someone believes god used evolution to create humans. It’s much more descriptive of what they actually believe.
How?” I always wonder — evolution isn’t a railroad track in which you can put a car at one end and expect it to arrive at the other.
Beyond that, you have to believe that 99.9% of all species had to perish just so you could be here. The narcissism is just off the charts.
Those are the weirdest subtitles.
@raven
Newt won SC?! That slimy racist douchebag?! He is much worse than corporate robot Mitt Romney! *sigh* I think I need to rest.
My local weather guy believes in global warming. But Gary England is also a legend in the meteorology field, it would be weird if he didn’t know what he’s talking about.
In Australia they have no need for such qualifications. Generally a background in children’s television and a willingness to broadcast on location with an ever increasingly bizarre display of unpredictable animals is enough.
Is it just me, or did anyone else notice that list was composed entirely of men? Does that mean the TV weather industry is a rampaging bastion of sexism or just that women are smarter?
Clearly, Gingrich saw Ionesco’s Rhinoceros and thought that it was “history”, a subject he hasn’t studied.
That would explain his theater of the absurd.
Chris Booth,
Are you being sarcastic? According to wikipedia:
One deduces that, like Romney, he speaks French. What are the Republicans to do?
My question about theistic evolution isn’t how. It’s why. I’ve never heard anyone say why a omnipotent being would use evolution to create life when the being could just wiggle its nose or snap its fingers.
True, but his SC win promises a long and bitter fight with Romney, and whichever wins will fail to enthuse a large segment of the Rethug faithful.
So Newt Gingrich is really Papa Lazarou? … Nah, I can’t even act surprised.
Oh, I’m very surprised, Dave.
that’s much better makeup skills than he would have learned from his wives, Dave.
why a omnipotent being would use evolution to create life when the being could just wiggle its nose or snap its fingers.
like this?
At least my weatherman, Gary England, admits that the climate is changing. As someone else pointed out he seems to recognize that global warming is occurring, but he doesn’t think it’s caused by human activity. He’s not as bad as some.
He is all over the place. I think he is just saying whatever it takes to get elected. Given what he’s said recently and how diametric that is to what hes stated in the past I wouldn’t call him anything but an actor.
NOOOOOOOOOOOO, not Topper Shutt!
Oh well, we usually watch “Lyin’ Bob Ryan” anyway.
Would like to know where Doug Hill comes down on this topic.
And, yeah, every weatherMAN I can think of is a MAN. Feh.
The tea party and the Republicans in the South are racists, pure and simple. The language Gangrene uses in these southern states all speak to the white male southerner who wants nothing more than to end the term of the “colored boy” in the White House. Gangrene’s less than subtle references to minorities is clearly heard by these folks, and is why they cat-call, cheer and applaud when Gangrene references them.
The kicker is Gingrich is a dinosaur freak. He wanted to be a palaeontologist.
Before the knuckle draggers started pulling the Republican to the right they actually understood science.
This is from a 1997 article in the NYT’s, http://www.nytimes.com/1997/08/29/us/speaker-gingrich-mixes-politics-and-paleontology.html?pagewanted=all
…”This is sheer pleasure,” he (Gingrich) told reporters after his find, a large dinosaur bone that Dr. Horner said he could not identify precisely until he or his associates complete the laborious task of removing it from the rock and earth where it is encased…….
My wife and I remember seeing him “debate” Dr Horner on “Did Dinosaurs Evolve from Reptiles or Birds” at the Museum of the Rockies It was broadcast on CSPAN (we are geeky). I am very surprised opposition research has not dug that up. Maybe Santorm could ask Dr. Horner for a copy.
Never heard of a dutch weatherman denying global warming. Bet their career wouldn’t last much longer if the did. And ofcourse, our country being largely below sea level urges one to take the threat deadly serious.
long_string_of_characters @ #34:
He “debated” Dr. Horner on dinosaurs?!?
Was this the event?
As I get older, I become more and more mystified by this: All the arguments between `religionists’ and `non-religionnsts’ seem to use the words and concepts of religion. It’s almost as if both sides have forgotten the `purpose’ of religion.
What is the `purpose’ of religion, you ask?
Very, very simple answer: The `purpose’ of religion is the preparation and maintenance of The People of The Masses of civilization for lifelong exploitation through a long evolved process of extortion by blackmail.
Who is it that set this up and keeps it going?
That is also very, a very simple answer: it is the `elite’ of civilization who set it up and keep it going.
The disheartening part is this: The `purpose’ of religion is identical to the `purpose’ of civilization itself — the aggrandizement of the `elite’ by The People of The Masses of civilization.
Indeed, religion can be viewed as a `refinement’ (over civilization itself) of the methods of the `elite’ to prepare and maintain the People of The Masses of civilization for lifelong extortion.
In fact, it is this `purpose of civilization/religion(and civilization itself) that completely separates the human society of civilization from all other human societies that have ever existed, and the few not-civilized societies that exist today.
One of the principle means of `implementing’ the religious extortion is the `implantation’ of the concept of an `everlasting soul’ in the minds of young and very young civilized people at as early an age as possible, and preferably by parents, who are earlier victims of the same process.
What about `God’, `Heaven’, `Hell’, `The Bible’, and all the rest?
Nothing more than the `subsidiary paraphernalia’ that is the `filling-in’ for religion without which the concept of an `everlasting soul’ would be harmless/meaningless.
The civilized clearly waste far too much time and `mental bandwidth’ on religion, and arguing about religion. It’s time to recognize and acknowledge what religion is all about, and then reject it — forget it, if possible, but certainly render it powerless in `guiding’ our lives — for look where it has led us.
Then we civilized may, just may, be able to save ourselves from the Environmental disaster and catastrophe that certainly awaits us if we remain on our present course, `guided’ by religion.
Perhaps, after we have shed ourselves of religion we can get down to the business of building a society for ourselves that serves The People, the vast majority, instead of a tiny minority.
See: Nisbet
OK, I normally just lurk, but this particular article made me actually register, because I am so mad at some of these “meteorologists.”
See, there are many, many kinds of meteorologists. I was an operational meteorologists, that is, I knew tons and tons about weather mostly in the field of forecasting and protecting aircraft and civilians. The military who trained me trained me for a year in this, as well as many years experience. Climatologists receive much more training in that particular field and know their crap a heckuva lot more than I do. There are also space weather people, those eggheads who develop programs, and broadcast meteorologists(if indeed they are meteorologists-because some are just actors.)
Broadcast meteorologists receive the same training I do and are NOT necessarily experts in climatology (although they may be.) I would no more trust my tv weatherperson with climatology then I would trust a botanist with my medical treatment.
Gingrich of course won South Carolina. Between the whole “the Republican Establishment is Against Me!” line and the whole slew of Atwater style racist dog-whistles, he was an easy win. Cap it off with the oh-so-indignant rant against “The Elite Media” at the debate and he couldn’t have lost. That any such individual could draw any amount of votes should bother any rational person.
If this guy manages to somehow get in office . . . nevermind, I just can’t envision it. it’s too far into insanity. The mountains of Madness beckon.
In this CSPAN “debate” with Jack Horner, Gingrich has no problems whatsoever with geological epochs and does not object when Dr. Horner refers to dinosaurs giving rise to birds. He also refers to regions where there are dinosaurs, other regions there are dinosaurs, and he contrasts them with “modern” (extant) animals. At 24:28, Gingrich states that birds are dinosaurs: referring to birds he says “since they are dinosaurs”.
A few seconds later he references “vestigial wings”.
He is speaking as a “Darwinist” in the CSPAN video, he is speaking as an out-and-out “evilutionist”.
The video PZ attached is clearly dishonest pandering–he understands the concepts of evolution and genetics better than most laymen, and his eructations in the video PZ attached is willful pandering to the LCD of his party; his party should take offense at what he obviously considers their intelligence.
I don’t understand such dishonesty. I am appalled.
Don’t forget that Newt is from Georgia, which is practically the same thing as this so called “South Carolina”. In fact, two of the top runners have won races which reflect their regional appeal: Romney in New Hampshire (wow! what a surprise), and Newt in South Carolina.
If I’m not mistaken Mittens Romney apparently used to accept the climatological consensus once before the Tea Party voting bloc “convinced” him otherwise right?
Romney to me seems the least bad out of an admittedley very bad bunch.
Not that that’s saying much.
On the TV news coverage here in Oz (ABC – news 24) t’other day they said that Gingrich is an SF and space exploration fan. Dunno if that’s true but if so, then like newts :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j01Wkw8Lqu4
I think (& hope as a member of the same class myself) he’s highly unrepresentative of that class.
Meanwhle in other semi-related news :
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2012/01/20/2011-the-9th-hottest-year-on-record/
2011 was the ninth hottest year on record – & the hottest ever La Nina year apparently.
@42.robro says:
I’d make that three out of three with “stinkyfroth” Santorum’s belated win in Iowa.
@rspiesr – What does your ‘overuse’ of ‘scare quotes’ have to do with the ‘topic’ at ‘hand’?
And slightly more on topic, Weather is not climate. I’m not sure if Australian weather presenters are meant to have actual degrees in meteorology. But then I watch the actual news reports so rarely I couldn’t tell you what their position on climate change is.
@rspiesr #37
Yes? You generally seem to be putting true things in all those scare quotes you’re abusing, but what does any of it have to do with this thread?
@23: Back in Belgium, the two weatherpeople on the government channel are a man and a woman. They’re quite popular people actually, and both qualified meteorologists.
None of the channels would dare put an autocue reader for the weather actually as they would be mocked relentlessly.
Gingrich of course won South Carolina. Between the whole “the Republican Establishment is Against Me!” line and the whole slew of Atwater style racist dog-whistles, he was an easy win.
Well that, and the extra Five Million dollars kicked into his ad campaign there by a single contributor, who just happens to have large business interests in SC.
evidently though, there is some doubt as to whether that same person will kick another few million into his bid for Florida…
Imagine that.
I laugh hard when I see US news outlets talking about how the republican primary will be a hard-fought race.
if they had half a brain, they’d note how contrived this “race” really is.
I actually know a couple professional weathermen (as opposed to the ametuer ones) and they all understand the extreme danger of man-made climate change. I’ve heard they are discouraged from talking about it on the air because the television stations get flooded with angry, threatening even, calls and letters from the rabid anti-science crowd any time they mention global warming or evolution in news stories. In fact, I’d bet that is the biggest reason important science stories are so rarely (if ever) covered by popular news outlets: religious groups have very well organized letter writting battalions ready to strike at a moment’s notice.
Also, becareful not to be too quick to give John Huntsman credit for standing up for science. When I saw him make that statement a few months ago, I knew he was going to do the anti-science shuffle within a week. Sure enough, just days later he was singing a different tune to a Tea Party group; he said some vague stuff about “lack of evidence” and “conflicting views” and other excuses. It reminded me of about six months ago when Chris Christie stood up to the hysterical Sharia law nonsense that the right was screaming about. Many sane people gave credit to Christie for being brave enough to stand up and call out such demonstrable BS. While I gave him some credit, I reserved the right to take it all back in the extremely likely case that he needs to pander to the fanatics in a few years when he runs for president and acts like he never said any of that reasonable stuff.
#37 rspiesr I APPLAUD YOU – nicely done and so cutting to the obvious truth.
#45 and #46 – I subconsciously ignored ‘quotes’ – determining the essence of what was being said (otherwise well) seemed to override any picayune concern for me.
As to relevance: I read it as a statement about the symbiotic relationship of religion and politics. Without going into more explanation I reference PZ’s “Mitt Romney, the conservative establishment candidate, is a theistic evolutionist. He …” and then the intimations of most of PZ’s post. Clearly we are discussing religion and (elected and corporate) politics at some level and not just weather broadcasters’ qualifications.
#37 seems very relevant – a bit of a rant – but that’s why we have have these blog outlets.
This is a sure sign that a society is fucked up when the mere mention of scientific facts are enough to complain to a TV station.
Also, Newt Gingrich debated Jack Horner and seemed to know his shit? That blew my mind. A republican with intellectual curiousity is as common as a right wing hippy.
Huh. Interesting. Not the case over here.
*collapse to floor*
*howl*
…erm.
They’re too stupid to take offense.
Ponder the meaning of that sentence. Then join me howling on the floor.
BTW, the phenomenon has occurred before. Marcus Ross pretends to be a cretinist so he can keep his cushy job at “Liberty” “University” (and, presumably, so his parents don’t disinherit him).
“The advantage when you’re smart is that you can pretend to be stupid. The opposite is a whole lot harder.”
Yes, and would you please stop using gràvè àccènts as quotation marks/apostrophes? They’re not remotely the same thing. Sorry, pet peeve of mine.
*sigh* Why am I not surprised.
Every once in a while, somebody says on this blog that if only they didn’t have a conscience, they could be rich, perhaps even powerful, by duping the masses.
Well?
I was quite good at selling cars — used and new — and hated the job and, worse, hated myself. Joining the Army was a big step up in sense of self-worth.
As AronRa asked: Where is our candidate?
I am glad I don’t have to make the choice (live in Europe), but none of them would get my vote.
Obama seems to think that legal protection and human rights are an inconvenience, most of the candidates don’t understand evolution or climate change.
It is at the point when I think that Ralph Nader might just be the least bad candidate. Of course, he’ll never get elected in a million years, what with people’s attitude that whatever is good for the industy lobbies must be good for them, and especially so since Citizens Untited vs. FEC.
@ 54 David Marjanović
Point taken. Perhaps I should amend it to a republican with a conscience is as common as a right wing hippy.
Hm, it seems the Newt is actually a spineless hag-fish.
And how low that LCD of his party really is should be obvious when someone with that history has a real chance of winning.
Well, at least one of the “good haired weathermen” is telling the truth. Instead of throwing up red herrings and spouting pseudoscience, Chris Allen actually admits his conclusions are based purely on religion. Just remember, they all hold their views because they don’t believe their god would allow global warming to happen. Arguing the science is a waste or time. Nothing can get past all that indoctrination.
Ol Newty can be slick. Notice how he references “our founding document”, without being specific. Unfortunately the Declaration of Independence has a bit of “God junk” in it, but the foundation of Federal Law, the Constitution, has no such contamination.
Chris Booth,
The Dr Horner, Gingich debate you found might be the one we saw, but I think there is another. No matter, this video makes the point as well the other one. Thanks for finding it.
I can kind of understand flipping on immigration, trade, choice or taxes. Circumstance and politics are dynamic so I try not be a slave to single ideology and don’t insist my Representative be that way on most issues.
But how a person can flip or nearly flip, when it comes to basic earth is round, vs. earth is flat, type sicence makes my head hurt.
If you havent’ watched the video or checked out the Times article please do so. I am sickened because I can’t help liking the Gingrich in this video. He in no way resembles the nasty, dough faced, right wing fire plug he is now.
In the video you can hear his passion for science and understanding of evolutionary biology.
His religious right pander contol is cranked up to 10 right now, so I am sure these videos and stories like these, are the last thing he wants to surface right now.
Well Newt, here they are again…. enjoy..
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/111009-1
http://www.nytimes.com/1997/08/29/us/speaker-gingrich-mixes-politics-and-paleontology.html?pagewanted=all
For any who haven’t looked at the discussion thread below the ThinkProgress weatherman article, there’s a “board-certified meteorologist” named Mike Smith who will not quit defending his view that it’s a hoax. He’s completely enveloped in the idea that he’s competent to expound on climate science. He cites “climategate” as if it’s convincing, authoritative proof of a hoax. He answers every thread (and I mean every thread) on the site in a calm, unflappable manner. This is the guy who does the most damage: not the screaming Christian Republican weatherman, but the eminent-seeming meteorologist (who claims incidentally to not be a Republican) who patiently explains to you how climate change is a hoax. He’d do amazingly well on Fox or Glenn Beck.
I think he is just saying whatever it takes to get elected. Given what he’s said recently and how diametric that is to what hes stated in the past I wouldn’t call him anything but an actor.
have you ever considered that might be the reason that the republican party has so often recruited actors to run for high level posts?
I am ashamed to admit that my local weatherman is on that list. What a shame. Marquette is not the biggest or more progressive town, so I shouldn’t be surprised, I suppose. Conservatives seem to be the majority here. I certainly hoped for better though.
Doing some snooping, I found that our meteorologist does not even have a degree in the subject. He has an undergraduate degree in communications and appears to have aborted an attempted education in meteorology. Climate scientist, indeed.
“Beyond that, you have to believe that 99.9% of all species had to perish just so you could be here. The narcissism is just off the charts.”
Mark Twain remarked that the era of human existence is to the whole of geologic time as the uppermost layer of paint on the Eiffel Tower is to the whole tower height.
So…”obviously the purpose of the Eiffel Tower is to hold up that final layer of paint”
I disageee. Which particular lie a liar chooses to tell is immaterial. The climate denialosphere propagates several incompatible lies simultaneously, because the aim is simply to sow confusion.