Columbia Journalism Review asks “Why don’t TV weathermen believe in climate change?”

Meteorologists are not required to take a course in climate change, this is not part of the NOAA/NWS [National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/National Weather Service] certification requirements, so university programs don’t require the course (even if they offer it). So we have been educating generations of meteorologists who know nothing at all about climate change.

Columbia Journalism Review has a fascinating article, “Hot Air:  Why don’t TV weathermen believe in climate change?“  Because people seem to think they should know something about climate, (anti-science) weathermen get undo attention in the (right-wing) media — see “Meteorological Malpractice: Accuweather’s Joe Bastardi pushes the “70s Ice Age Scare” myth again” and “Bastardi: “Global cooling is actually a cause of drought in California”.

Heck, a former TV weatherman has the most popular anti-science website in the world, WattsUpWithThat.  And of course, Weather Channel Founder John Coleman, a subject of the CJR piece, asserted in 2007 that global warming is “the greatest scam in history,” which puts him in the conspiracy wing of the disinformers with the now discredited Anthony Watts.  [Doesn't everyone know that the greatest scam in history is the whole moon-landing nonsense?]

The answer to the question, “Are meteorologists climate experts?” is “no,” or I should say, “not inherently.”  That’s clear from the CJR story (excerpted below) and from the opening quote of this post, which comes from an interview I did a few years ago with Dr. Judith Curry, Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.  [Yes, that Judith Curry, who wrote "an open letter to graduate students and young scientists in fields related to climate research"].

I originally asked the question in 2007 when Coleman wrote that now-infamous article claiming global warming is “the greatest scam in history,” and explained the source of his conspiracy theory:

Read more

Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) cosponsors Dirty Air Act

Say No to the Dirty Air Act.

That’s Sen. Lisa “fiddle while Nome burns” Murkowski defending her Dirty Air Amendment.  And yes, I can’t decide what the best nickname for her is.  If you’re known by your accomplishments, then it could be Lisa “top fundraiser from utility industry” Murkowski.

Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) has a terrific response on Grist, “An argument against Murkowski’s radical attempt to overrule EPA scientists“:

Read more

Obama: Decision represents “a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans.”

Sweeping aside a century-old understanding and overruling two important precedents, a bitterly divided Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that the government may not ban political spending by corporations in candidate elections….

The 5-to-4 decision was a doctrinal earthquake but also a political and practical one. Specialists in campaign finance law said they expected the decision, which also applies to labor unions and other organizations, to reshape the way elections are conducted….

Justice John Paul Stevens read a long dissent from the bench. He said the majority had committed a grave error in treating corporate speech the same as that of human beings. His decision was joined by the other three members of the court’s liberal wing.

And so a corrupted process becomes more corrupt.  The High Court’s ruling can be viewed here.

Of course, existing dirty energy industries have tens of billions of dollars in profits to spend on electing their candidates.  New clean energy industries and future generations, not so much.  Indeed, the very point of the ruling by the conservative majority is that corporations are really no different than homo “sapiens” sapiens – except of course they have a lot more money.

The Sierra Club has released a Statement by Political Director, Cathy Duvall, on the grim implication for energy and climate policy:

Read more

Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) announced today she is co-sponsoring Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s (R-AK) resolution of disapproval to block regulation of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act:

I am very concerned about the burden that EPA regulation of carbon emissions could put on our economy and have questions about the actual benefit EPA regulations would have on the environment. Heavy-handed EPA regulation, as well as the current cap and trade bills in Congress, will cost us jobs and put us at an even greater competitive disadvantage to China, India and others.

Like Murkowski and Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Lincoln is demonstrating a shocking disregard for her state’s interests, the health of her constituents, and a misunderstanding of why America has been losing jobs to China and India. Her support for the Dirty Air Act is an act of allegiance to polluters.

The entire state of Arkansas is a disaster area because of severe storms, tornadoes and flooding from record rainfall that occurred throughout 2009. As warming continues, Arkansas’ climate will become even more disastrous — something Lincoln as the chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee should understand.

China has already forged ahead with building its own low-carbon economy, laying the foundation for clean-energy jobs and innovation, with a command-and-control economy combined with massive public investment. As venture capitalist John Doerr and GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt warn, “China’s commitment to developing clean energy technologies and markets is breathtaking,” but:

Right now, the United States has no long-term market signal to tell companies and consumers that it values low-carbon energy. It has no policies to discourage sending hundreds of billions of dollars a year overseas for energy. It does not offer adequate sustained R&D funding to be a serious competitor in this huge business.

Denying the science of global warming will prevent the United States from being competitive in the future — something Lincoln should understand.

Lincoln has taken nearly a million dollars in polluter cash, including $10,000 from the right-wing extremists at Koch Industries.

It seems pretty clear what Lincoln is capable of understanding.

Over 80 U.S. Companies Call on Obama & Congress to Enact Comprehensive Climate and Energy Legislation

More than 80 leading CEOs from U.S. businesses, including Exelon, Virgin America, NRG Energy, eBay and PG&E, sent a letter to President Obama and members of Congress today calling on them to move quickly to enact comprehensive climate and energy legislation that will create jobs and enhance U.S. competitiveness.

Saying that the U.S. is “falling behind” in the global clean energy race, the letter calls for forceful leadership to achieve legislation that will unleash innovation, drive economic growth, boost energy independence and decrease our carbon emissions. The letter comes just one week before President Obama delivers his State of the Union address on January 27th.

“American businesses recognize this challenge and have already begun to respond and innovate. However, today’s uncertainty surrounding energy and climate regulation is hindering the large-scale actions that American businesses are poised to make,” the letter states. “We need strong policies and clear market signals that support the transition to a low-carbon economy and reward companies that innovate. It is time for the Administration and Congress to embrace this policy as the promising economic opportunity that will empower American workers to compete and American entrepreneurship to lead the way.”

The letter was signed by 83 CEOs from some of the nation’s largest electric power, manufacturing, clean tech, technology and consumer facing companies. To view the full text and the list of signatories please go to: http://www.wecanlead.org

Read more

The state that stands to suffer the most from human-caused global warming has elected leaders who want to stop efforts to avoid its inundation (see “Sea levels may rise 3 times faster than IPCC estimated, could hit 6 feet by 2100“).  That’s true of the Governor and presidential hopeful (see “Jindal Tries to Block Climate Change Regulation“).  It’s true of GOP Sen. Vitter who tried to block climate change response centers.  We’ve known for a while that Sen. Landrieu wants to jettison cap-and-trade.  Now we know she is joining Sen. Lisa Dirty Air Murkowski (R-AK) in her campaign to prevent Clean Air Act regulation of global warming pollution , as Brad Johnson reports in this Wonk Room excerpt:

Read more

Part 2: Drew Westen on how “The White House has squandered the greatest opportunity to change both the country and the political landscape since Ronald Reagan”

It is a truly remarkable feat, in just one year’s time, to turn the fear and anger voters felt in 2006 and 2008 at a Republican Party that had destroyed the economy, redistributed massive amounts of wealth from the middle class to the richest of the rich and the biggest of big businesses, and waged a trillion-dollar war in the wrong country, into populist rage at whatever Democrat voters can cast their ballot against.

All of this was completely predictable. And it was predicted. I wrote about it for the first time here on the sixth day of Obama’s presidency, and many of us have written about it in the intervening year.

The President’s steadfast refusal to acknowledge that we have a two-party system, his insistence on making destructive concessions to the same party voters he had sent packing twice in a row in the name of “bipartisanship,” and his refusal ever to utter the words “I am a Democrat” and to articulate what that means, are not among his virtues. We have competing ideas in a democracy — and hence competing parties — for a reason. To paper them over and pretend they do not exist, particularly when the ideology of one of the parties has proven so devastating to the lives of everyday Americans, is not a virtue. It is an abdication of responsibility.

What happens if you refuse to lay the blame for the destruction of our economy on anyone — particularly the party, leaders, and ideology that were in power for the last 8 years and were responsible for it? What happens if you fail to “brand” what has happened as the Bush Depression or the Republican Depression or the natural result of the ideology of unregulated greed, the way FDR branded the Great Depression as Hoover’s Depression and created a Democratic majority for 50 years and a new vision of what effective government can do? What happens when you fail to offer and continually reinforce a narrative about what has happened, who caused it, and how you’re going to fix it that Americans understand, that makes them angry, that makes them hopeful, and that makes them committed to you and your policies during the tough times that will inevitably lie ahead?

The country’s progressive political leadership, led by the Obama Administration, has failed to advance a compelling narrative (i.e. frame or extended metaphor), as I noted in Part 1. One of the people who has been out front on this most important of all elements for long-term political success is psychologist and Political Brain author Drew Westen.

I have quoted him before (see “Can Obama deliver health and energy security with a half (assed) message?“).   In the wake of the Massachusetts Senate debacle, he has an “I told you so” Huffington Post piece, sarcastically titled, “Obama Finally Gets His Victory For Bipartisanship.”  I don’t necessarily agree with everything he says, but his analysis remains must-read.  Here’s more:

Read more