WND Exclusive Commentary Con job at The Weather Channel
This week Americans observed a national day of mourning (I'm speaking not of President Ford's funeral, but rather the day that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi seized power in Congress).
Far-left political ideologies are being promulgated through ever-increasing mediums, and recently I noticed that a once-vaunted American television network, The Weather Channel, had succumbed to the cancerous spread of liberalism.
[...]
The Weather Channel is launching a new website and broadband channel dedicated solely to global warming called "One Degree" and has a weekly program called "The Climate Code," devoted almost entirely to liberal advocacy on climate matters.
[...]
If forecasters can't reliably tell us what will happen in two to three months from now, why would anyone trust that they know what will happen with the weather in 50 or 100 years from now and let them tell us how to live our lives accordingly?
This is all about Big Brother do-gooders trying to control how you live your life, and stripping away the freedoms and liberties of people to live their lives as they see fit, engage in commerce and raise their families.
39 comments
Melanie, you fucking doughhead, science is NEVER about politics. Global warming is science, not politics.
This week Americans observed a national day of mourning (I'm speaking not of President Ford's funeral, but rather the day that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi seized power in Congress). This is all about Big Brother do-gooders trying to control how you live your life, and stripping away the freedoms and liberties of people to live their lives as they see fit, engage in commerce and raise their families."
Totally ignoring your ignorance with regards to climatology, how does a show on the Weather Channel strip away your freedoms and liberties?
Am I not watching TV the right way or something?
You know, I have a theory about this "Liberal Media" bullshit. It comes from news stories about known phenomena such as Global Warming, and other environmental issues. Apparently, if the tone of your environmental stories is anything but derisive, you're liberally biased.
If forecasters can't reliably tell us what will happen in two to three months from now, why would anyone trust that they know what will happen with the weather in 50 or 100 years from now and let them tell us how to live our lives accordingly? slightest thing about the science of statistical systems like weather and climate, you'd know that the accuracy of prediction over long periods is greater than in the short term.
This is all about Big Brother do-gooders trying to control how you live your life, and stripping away the freedoms and liberties of people to live their lives as they see fit, engage in commerce and raise their families.
Ed:
Melanie there obviously doesn't know the difference between "climate" and "weather," does she?brother and his own campaign manager, both of which stated this created no conflict of interest...
Those damned do-gooders. When will they stop doing good?!
"The Weather Channel is launching a new website and broadband channel dedicated solely to global warming called "One Degree" and has a weekly program called "The Climate Code," devoted almost entirely to liberal advocacy on climate matters."
Please, save me from the idiots who say things like "I don't believe in global warming. We had snow here for the first time in eight years," or "I had to put an extra blanket on the bed last night. It can't be getting warmer."
Sandman, once again you spew wisdom like a well-shaken chapagne bottle.
"If you knew even the slightest thing about the science of statistical systems like weather and climate, you'd know that the accuracy of prediction over long periods is greater than in the short term."In the early 1960s, he discovered that the weather exhibits a nonlinear phenomenon known as sensitive dependence on initial conditions (see chaos theory). He explained this phenomenon, which makes long-range weather forecasting impossible, to the public as the "butterfly effect": in China a butterfly flaps its wings, leading to unpredictable changes in U.S. weather a few days later."
I'm pretty sure most of you existential deadbeats are familiar with the "Chaos Theory". Look up Ted "Every Man For Himself" Kennedy and his bitch John "Purple Butt" Kerry.
"Thats true, reality has a strong liberal bias."
LISTEN UP YOU LIBERAL FUDGEPACKERS!
Svante Arrhenius, "On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air Upon the Temperature of the Ground." Philosophical Magazine 41: 237-76. Published in 1896.
Good thing it's too late.
the problem here, as I see it, isn't that she believes such nonsense - that's her right - but she publishes this bilge thus helping to bias minds against the concept of climate change.
She obviously has an audience whose plitican views chime with her own, but by mixing this crap in with political commentary she makes it less likely that her followers will take climate change seriously.
And that is a disservice to her fans. If she wants to explain her objections rationally then there's no problem. Unfortunately, she, like so many of her political ilk, use hyperbole and punditry to "make" a case.
"If you knew even the slightest thing about the science of statistical systems like weather and climate, you'd know that the accuracy of prediction over long periods is greater than in the short term."
Interesting stuff. But does that apply to average nature of an entire system over time, as opposed to chaotic effects within it? One cannot predict the motion of a particular wavefront in a container of turbulently flowing gas (except over miniscule distances and timeframes, which is what I imagine is the reason behind the more accurate prediction of the motion of weather systems in the short term mentioned above), but one can still put a value on the average temperature of the whole system, and its tendency to absorb or reject heat to its surroundings. Looks like my original statement needs revision - one can more accurately predict changes in the average properties of a system over longer periods than short ones - average effects are then more discernible against the relatively high-frequency noise of chaotic effects within that system. It's my understanding that global warming concerns itself with just such averaged properties of the earth and its atmosphere.
Sorry about the messed-up formatting, by the way - the quoted posts predate FSTDT's major rebuild recently.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
