The climate propaganda cartel infects virtually everything in media, including weather reporting. So what happens when one weather reporting network resists the cartel, and sticks to actual weather reporting? It comes up against the cartel’s rage. Scott Dance, writing in A weather network, tied to one of Steve Bannon’s platforms, comes under fire for The Washington Post, reports on the cartel’s attack on WeatherNation, which he refers to as “critics”:
These critics also argue that in its own coverage, WeatherNation fosters climate change skepticism by shunning any mention of the established links between human-driven climate warming and the disasters the channel covers, thus discouraging viewers from considering the consequences of climate change.
The emphasized portion is political propaganda. There are no such “established links.” There are established links between weather events and various atmospheric conditions. Climate is not real. It is a statistical abstraction—a compilation of weather data for specific regions averaged out over a period of decades (usually 30 years, for weather reporting purposes). In other words, weather, which is real, determines climate averages. Climate change refers to long term changes in atmospheric patterns, the cause of which can be caused by human or natural activities. These long term changes can affect the climate statistics, altering what we call climate. The same changes in atmospheric patterns can ultimately affect weather. But how is never directly provable. It can only be speculated upon. What can be observed is how the patterns themselves affect weather. That’s what weather reporting is about.
Climate change considerations are irrelevant to weather reporting. I have been a weather buff since early childhood. Born in 1949, I lived through decades of slight global cooling (roughly 1940 - 1980) followed by the current warming period since (roughly 1980 to the present. It’s interesting to speculate about these mild climate changes. But that is irrelevant to weather reporting. When I watch weather stations, I want weather info, not unverifiable climate claims of “established links” to weather events. I want to know about jet streams and highs and lows and atmospheric rivers and ocean temperatures and polar vortexes and La Niñas and the myriad other phenomena that affect weather.
Ten current and former WeatherNation employees who spoke with The Washington Post described a discomfort with the programming produced next door — as well as with an understanding that they should refrain from on-air references to climate change, despite the scientific consensus on how it influences on global weather extremes (sic).
On-air references to climate change is exactly the kind of irrelevant speculative trivia that muddles most weather reporting these days. It’s political propaganda, as indicated by the inclusion of the phrase “scientific consensus.” Together with “climate change skepticism,” it’s obvious what the critics are up to: They seek to stifle rational dissent and debate. But weather reporting should not be on either side, or any side, of the controversial topic of how, or if, a shifting climate plays in to weather events. Weather reporting networks should stick to what their name demands—weather.
Such propaganda is why I rarely watch The Weather Channel any longer. It is an unnecessary injection of useless info. Nothing happening in weather is anything that hasn’t happened before. There is simply no way to provably link any weather event to climate change, as any self-respecting meteorologist will tell you. I don’t need to be lectured to by political hacks.
I never heard of WeatherNation before coming across this article. But it’s refreshing to know that there still exists a weather outlet that actually sticks to verifiable facts. Climate is a legitimate topic. But it has no place in weather reporting.
WeatherNation president Michael Norton said in an interview that although WeatherNation’s success helped to shape strategy in the launch of Real America’s Voice [Bannon’s parent network], the two entities operate independently. He stressed that WeatherNation is strictly focused on giving viewers constant weather updates, especially during events such as hurricanes and tornado outbreaks.
“A lot of people tune into our service during those events to watch live coverage,” Norton said. “They know we’ve become a trusted brand during these live events.”
An experienced forecaster, Douglas — whose legal name is Douglas Kruhoeffer — founded WeatherNation in 2008. He taped forecast segments for syndication, emailing them to stations that could not or did not want to produce weather forecasts in-house.
In an apparent reference to The Weather Channel, Kruhoeffer explains:
“No documentaries, specials or movies, just cutting edge graphics, a heavy emphasis on social media, and a staff of degreed meteorologists,” Douglas told The Washington Post in 2011.
WeatherNation has never strayed from that road map.
Thankfully!
WeatherNation has about 700,000 followers on Facebook, some 100,000 more than Real America’s Voice.
“It reminds me of what the Weather Channel looked like 20 years ago [the Weather Channel I loved]—very basic experience with elementary graphics, elevator music played behind local updates, et cetera,” said Michael Greeson, the principal analyst for Aluma Insights, a research firm focused on streaming video. “To put it another way, it appears made for older viewers who just want the basics [like me].”
On its Facebook page, WeatherNation explains:
As numerous sources predict increases in severe weather episodes throughout the US in the coming years, WeatherNation is ready to offer viewers timely, accurate and compelling information around the clock to keep you current with national, regional, and local conditions.
My emphasis.
Of what value are such years-ahead “predictions” to viewers concerned about tomorrow’s actual weather? Predictions of more severe weather have been going on for decades, with little to show for their accuracy. To WeatherNation’s Facebook statement I can only say, keep up the good, honest reporting, and leave the speculation to the political mouthpieces..
Related Reading:
Samantha Tassillo’s Irresponsible Call to Turn Weather Reporting into Political Propaganda
The Associated Press’s Biased ‘Reporting’
The Collectivist Left Media Launches Major ‘Climate Crisis’ Propaganda Campaign
The Rightful Place of Science: Disasters & Climate Change, 2nd Edition, by Roger Pielke, Jr.
It is therefore surprising to discover that by all the various real world data considered here, the weather in the first half of the 20th century was, if anything, more extreme than in the second half.
No comments:
Post a Comment