WCCO interviews its own meteorologist, Mike Fairbourne, about signing a petition questioning man's role in global warming. The Strib.com's Paul Walsh unearthed the story, in which Fairbourne denounced "squishy science" and "extremism." Although 'CCO deserves kudos for not ignoring the controversy, it wasn't one of Esme Murphy's tougher probes; Fairbourne complains people "won't allow me an opinion." No Mike, they're criticizing you for it, perhaps aware of the vast preponderance of scientific evidence.
Climate models based on incomplete data and assumptions are not "science". And who are these "people" Fairbourne speaks of, anyway? On the one hand you've got a guy that's at least formally educated to a certain degree about how the atmosphere works expressing misgivings about all the hysterics emanating from some global
Brauer also neglects to mention that there are others with PhD's in the field that aren't buying it either. And I hasten to add that the chief alarmist for this environmental doomsday cult is not some climate scientist, but himself a former journalist and a politician who twice dropped out of grad school.
I'm not going to try to argue the merits of either side of the controversy, since I am willing to grant more deference to those qualified to do so than I am to alt-news "journalists" and lefty-bloggers with degrees in Women's Studies. There are credible scientists on both sides of the issue with enough evidence to draw conclusions from either side into question; enough to say that former journalist, politician and two-time grad school dropout Al Gore's assertion that "the debate is over" was a bit premature insofar as no such debate had ever taken place in my memory.
Anyway, Brauer descends further:
More meteorologists: OK, so why should we care? Local meteorologists are the most listened-to weather commentators around, and can be a pretty big speed bump to public understanding. Murphy corrals other Twin Cities forecasters; KSTP's Dave Dahl says, "I'll believe the sun is controlling our climate until the day I die." Very scientific.
Apparently Brauer has never seen the "vast preponderance of evidence" pointing to the sun's effects on earth's climate. This guy is brilliant.
KARE tells its crew to squash opinions, and Fox9 hides behind corporate policy. That means zero local TV types publicly agree with the vast majority of scientists.
So what? Afraid that if the steady propagandistic drumbeat of "the debate is over" is repeated ad nauseum in every available outlet, that people might start think that there's a debate?
Good. We need to finally have one.
Oh, and BTW: how big is the majority? 80-20? 70-30? And what kind of scientists are we talking about here? Just climatologists? Or are we also counting chemists and medical researchers who read the papers, knead their chins and then decide that they'd better buy a Prius, pronto? Nobody ever says. It'd be nice if there was some discussion of facts known, facts unknown and all - ALL - the possible conclusions that can be drawn from them. Instead we're treated to doomsday scenarios and browbeating carrying absolutely nothing that even closely resembles "science". Just last week, in his Strib column, wrote with a presumably straight face that Brazil was cutting down swathes of rain forest the size of England every year. Meaning that Brazil will be treeless in about 10 years. Know whom Douglas cited as the source of this shocking information? Prince Charles.
Prince Fucking Charles.
When you're ready to convince me with actual facts and data (you know: "science") instead of parading out a series of glittery know-nothings spouting bullshit and prophesying doom, let me know. Until then, you can all kiss my empirical butt.