Say, Are Warmists Scaring The Public Too Much On ‘Climate Change’ And Weather?

The Washington Post’s hyper-Warmist/weather guy Jason Samenow has decided to perform a bit of introspection on the scaremongering emanating from the Cult of Climastrology

Is the media scaring the public too much about climate change and extreme weather?

The media has gone overboard in calling attention to links between climate change and extreme weather, contend two scholars in the United Kingdom. They argue that journalists are oversimplifying connections between weather and global warming and are resorting to scare tactics that are distracting the society from being prepared for extreme weather. The hype is responsible for a counterproductive and paralyzing “atmosfear,” they claim.

Let’s be clear: this doesn’t happen in a vacuum. These “journalists” are Warmists themselves and receive talking points from other Warmists, who provide the scary material and over-the-top prognostications with little actual scientific evidence. The media take it and run, often making it even scarier.

But their contention of a media-induced “atmosfear” goes too far. It’s possible to both plainly and carefully communicate how climate change is affecting extreme weather while also stressing the importance of extreme weather preparedness, irrespective of climate change.

In their provocative analysis in the journal Weather, Climate and Society, Vladimir Jankovic and David Schultz of the University of Manchester raise some valid points worthy of consideration. The most important point they make is that the overwhelming majority of damage from extreme weather results from people and property in harm’s way — not climate change. Some journalists and activists, in their zeal to connect the dots between weather and climate change, don’t place enough emphasis on this.

There really is no such thing as “extreme weather”. There is just weather, some of which is worse than others, and this has been going on for a long, long time. Nor is weather getting worse.

However, what the authors gloss over is that our atmosphere is fundamentally changed because of increasing greenhouse gases, and the effects on certain types of extreme weather are real. We can’t ignore this. It would be irresponsible for journalists to omit this very important aspect of the climate change story.

This is exactly what the analysis is talking about: idiotic pronouncements like a fundamental change to our atmosphere meant to scare people.

Consider these examples in which climate change is having significant impact on weather extremes:

* Locations all around the United States (and the world) are setting substantially more warm temperature records than cold temperature records. More extreme heat events have societal consequences. Warming from rising greenhouse gas concentrations is almost certainly playing a role in this.

Huh. Suddenly, it’s now important that places in the use are setting warm records. When it’s cool records and such, we’re told that the U.S. only accounts for 2% of the Earth’s surface, so, those are unimportant.

Journalists, as well as advocates for climate action, should take care in specifying which weather extremes may have been altered by climate change and how — and rely on peer-reviewed analysis.

Will they rely on the scientific documents that show there is no increase in “extreme weather?” Or, just look at the ones they like?

There is a very interesting comment from Steve T, part of the Capital Weather Gang for the Washington Post

My principal concern in regard to scientific credibility in communication of climate change matters is the ubiquitous use of “Weasel Words” (WWs). WWs such as could, suggest, might, perhaps, conceivably, appear to – and a dozen more in a list I’ve compiled – are designed to leave the impression that a specific and/or meaningful statement has been made; but, in actuality, phraseology incorporating them is almost without meaning. For example “could” is sufficiently (purposely?) ambiguous to render any claim with regard to the influence of climate change possible and unverifiable.

There’s more to it, click the link to read the rest of the comment. He makes a good point. We are constantly inundated with the Weasel Words, which I noted many, many times. These are meant to highten the scare factor that something could maybe might possibly doom us. We’re told that extreme weather could get worse. It isn’t. Nor are tropical systems, rainfall, nor droughts. Nor other weather.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

8 Responses to “Say, Are Warmists Scaring The Public Too Much On ‘Climate Change’ And Weather?”

  1. Hank_M says:

    I think the media goes overboard in everything. It’s as if they want to keep us in a perpetual state of alarm. Good for ratings, I suppose. But it wears thin over time. And no wonder the younger generation wants “safe spaces”. We’re all going to die tomorrow.

    Back to the weather, this is where they’ve truly jumped the shark. All weather I see reported on World News Tonite is referred to as extreme, affecting untold millions of people. Local news talks about weather “events”. Give me a break.

  2. Dana says:

    “Atmosfear:” I like it! 🙂

    But, the answer is obviously no, they aren’t scaring the public very much since, as you have pointed out before, global warming climate change is pretty much at the bottom of most people’s concerns.

  3. drowningpuppies says:

    Well, Barky told the U.N. today that the world is less violent now…

    So there’s a little comfort in that.

  4. Jeffery says:

    What you and citizen scientists call Weasel Words, professional scientists call Words.

    Predictions and even descriptions of data are couched carefully. The data support the hypothesis that… The results are consistent with the hypothesis… These data suggest… This demonstrates that…

    It’s the proper language of science and it’s different from blogger English. Recall that scientific theories are not proven, but as evidence accumulates a consensus forms accepting the theory as scientific fact. There’s always the possibility that the Big Bang Theory will be falsified (the theory, not the TV show). Perhaps a feasible, alternative theory will be presented and supported with evidence that invalidates the currently accepted theory that atmospheric CO2 is the cause of the current rapid warming.

  5. drowningpuppies says:

    Predictions and even descriptions of data are couched carefully…

    Global warming prediction is a scientific judgment based on complex -read flawed- computer models.
    So no one really has the slightest idea about the future, so speculation is limited only by one’s imagination and/or data manipulation.

  6. Liam Thomas says:

    LOL so Jeffery based upon your analysis of the sit e ation………

    It would hold true that you believe the following:

    In the second edition of the Principia Newton stated that nature reveals a creator. He claimed that this was evident firstly, from the fact that the universe formed at all. Secondly, from the fact that the masses that did form are placed so that they do not fall together under their own mutual gravitation, and thirdly, Newton found evidence of design in the specifics of our Solar System, such as the fact that the orbits of the planets are all in the same direction and plane. Newton claimed that the eccentric orbits of comets alone reveal the existence of a creator and described God as “an intelligent and powerful being”

  7. Jeffery says:

    Astrophysics has come a long way since the 1600s, and we understand more of the physical underpinnings of our universe than Newton did. While no expert on Newton, I don’t recall reading about his perspectives on black holes, the big bang or dark matter.

    So no, I do not accept Newton’s “evidence” of a creator as the last word.

    Are you suggesting that in another 400 years we’ll find an unknown cause of today’s rapid increase in temperature?

  8. Liam Thomas says:

    Are you suggesting that in another 400 years we’ll find an unknown cause of today’s rapid increase in temperature?

    Im suggesting that what you call EVIDENCE is in your words……….

    Astrophysics Make that Climatology has come a long way since the 1600s, make that 1900’s and we understand more of the physical underpinnings of our universe make that Ecology than Newton make that climate scientists did.

Bad Behavior has blocked 10569 access attempts in the last 7 days.