America's' Weather Channel' and its delicate approach to climate change.

raetsel

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 5, 2017
Messages
8,441
This is pretty disturbing stuff. The Weather Channel in the USA feels obliged to indulge in a form of self-censorship in order to avoid alienating much of their audience.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/09/business/media/weather-channel-hurricane-irma.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=span-abc-region&region=span-abc-region&WT.nav=span-abc-region
Yet in all the nonstop coverage there was no mention of climate change and its role in creating extreme weather — not at the morning meeting, and not at other planning sessions throughout the day.

With a major storm on the way, the focus was understandably on the latest forecast and how residents should prepare. Yet the omission reflects the network’s delicate balancing act. Though there is no debate among Weather Channel executives and meteorologists about man-made global warming, they are wary of alienating their core audience, which leans right.“I believe in climate change, and I believe it’s man-made,” said Dave Shull, the company’s chief executive and a Republican, who spent much of Friday in the newsroom. “But I’m not a big fan of the term. It’s been politicized.”
 


D

Deleted member 48908

Why is it disturbing? They are covering hurricanes at the moment. When it comes to hurricanes...

Science says:

In summary, neither our model projections for the 21st century nor our analyses of trends in Atlantic hurricane and tropical storm counts over the past 120+ yr support the notion that greenhouse gas-induced warming leads to large increases in either tropical storm or overall hurricane numbers in the Atlantic. One modeling study projects a large (~100%) increase in Atlantic category 4-5 hurricanes over the 21st century, but we estimate that this increase may not be detectable until the latter half of the century.

Therefore, we conclude that despite statistical correlations between SST and Atlantic hurricane activity in recent decades, it is premature to conclude that human activity–and particularly greenhouse warming–has already caused a detectable change in Atlantic hurricane activity. (“Detectable” here means the change is large enough to be distinguishable from the variability due to natural causes.) However, human activity may have already caused some some changes that are not yet detectable due to the small magnitude of the changes or observation limitations, or are not yet confidently modeled (e.g., aerosol effects on regional climate).
https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/

Using hurricanes to justify climate change is a non-runner. Weakens the argument.

Hurricanes are weather and geographical events. Not climatological ones.
 

Lúidín

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 14, 2013
Messages
7,253
Hurricanes are weather and geographical events. Not climatological ones.
But an increase in their number and intensity could indicate a climate shift and should be discussed regardless of people with their fingers in their ears.
 
D

Deleted member 48908

But an increase in their number and intensity could indicate a climate shift and should be discussed regardless of people with their fingers in their ears.
Climate change is happening.

It's just not causing a detectable change in Atlantic hurricane activity.

Better to talk about ice caps and glacial movement and rising sea levels, than hurricanes.
 

raetsel

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 5, 2017
Messages
8,441
Why is it disturbing? They are covering hurricanes at the moment. When it comes to hurricanes...

.
You've missed the point.
It is obviously disturbing because the channel conceals the truth for purely commercial reasons.
 
D

Deleted member 48908

You've missed the point.
It is obviously disturbing because the channel conceals the truth for purely commercial reasons.
The channel is called The Weather Channel. The clue is in the name. Climate isn't weather. At times like this, its biggest responsibility is to provide its viewers with as much information as they possibly can, so that they can make an informed decision regarding what actions they need to take.
 

Congalltee

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 10, 2009
Messages
6,124
97% of scientists agree human activity is contributing to climate change. The weather station, broadcasters and politicians have a duty to inform the great unwashed - even if the snowflakes can't handle it.
 
D

Deleted member 48908

97% of scientists agree human activity is contributing to climate change. The weather station, broadcasters and politicians have a duty to inform the great unwashed - even if the snowflakes can't handle it.
I agree.

However, using an event that scientists say is not caused by climate change, to inform the unwashed snowflakes about climate change would be disingenuous and weakens the argument.

As I said up thread, best to stick with rising water levels, loss of ice caps etc.... You know, things that are actually caused by climate change.
 

Congalltee

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 10, 2009
Messages
6,124
I agree.

However, using an event that scientists say is not caused by climate change, to inform the unwashed snowflakes about climate change would be disingenuous and weakens the argument.

As I said up thread, best to stick with rising water levels, loss of ice caps etc.... You know, things that are actually caused by climate change.
I agree with your agreement and elaboration.
 

raetsel

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 5, 2017
Messages
8,441
The channel is called The Weather Channel. The clue is in the name. Climate isn't weather. At times like this, its biggest responsibility is to provide its viewers with as much information as they possibly can, so that they can make an informed decision regarding what actions they need to take.
:roll:
You're engaging in preposterous semantics.

Climate change is directly affecting our weather around the world. I'd have thought that was pretty obvious. Therefore it is entirely relevant to the output of a TV channel which reports on weather.
 

Tribal

Well-known member
Joined
May 10, 2017
Messages
3,206
:roll:
You're engaging in preposterous semantics.
.
Is he really?

They covering a realtime event, not hosting a climatology marathon.

The weather channel follows the people needs and right now many are trying to decide whether to sit or run.

Discussing anthropomorphic climate change is more broader than a 36 forecast.
 

raetsel

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 5, 2017
Messages
8,441
Is he really?

They covering a realtime event, not hosting a climatology marathon.

The weather channel follows the people needs and right now many are trying to decide whether to sit or run.

Discussing anthropomorphic climate change is more broader than a 36 forecast.
That argument would hold water only if it restricted its reporting to current weather predictions, but it doesn't.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_programs_broadcast_by_The_Weather_Channel
Besides, the channel's spokesman in the article linked in the opening post offers only the excuse that climate change has been politicised. He doesn't engage in nonsense such as 'climate is not weather' or any other lame explanations.
He is correct in that of course, but the blame for it lies with the far right.
 
D

Deleted member 48908

That argument would hold water only if it restricted its reporting to current weather predictions, but it doesn't.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_programs_broadcast_by_The_Weather_Channel
Besides, the channel's spokesman in the article linked in the opening post offers only the excuse that climate change has been politicised. He doesn't engage in nonsense such as 'climate is not weather' or any other lame explanations.
He is correct in that of course, but the blame for it lies with the far right.
For the last two and a half weeks, The Weather Channel has exclusively been covering hurricanes Harvey and Irma. Exclusively.
 

raetsel

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 5, 2017
Messages
8,441
For the last two and a half weeks, The Weather Channel has exclusively been covering hurricanes Harvey and Irma. Exclusively.
The article made that entirely clear. The article pointed out that the channel's audience shoots up when the USA is enduring weather extremes so they focus entirely on the main story during such events. It is not an explanation for their self censorship on an ongoing basis.
 

JCR

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
6,241
A lot of media outlets are dependent on internet traffic, clicks, as well as competing with many other outlets. Its the nature of contemporary media. Truth comes second to making money, unfortunately.

If an outlets audience are likely to switch away when they don't like hearing something, most media outlets won't tell them what they don't want to hear. Not to report on the links between hurricane activity and climate change is frankly absurd.
 
D

Deleted member 48908

The article made that entirely clear. The article pointed out that the channel's audience shoots up when the USA is enduring weather extremes so they focus entirely on the main story during such events. It is not an explanation for their self censorship on an ongoing basis.
Perhaps you could explain the following, then?

United States of Climate Change

https://weather.com/science/environment/news/trump-team-climate-change-global-warming

Please note that both are from The Weather Channel....weird, isn't it.
 

Tribal

Well-known member
Joined
May 10, 2017
Messages
3,206
I fail to see how climate change activists will be appeased, does the weather forecaster have to say flooding that may engulf your house and endanger your life is caused by climate change each time they issue a warning in a live cycle event like Irma?

Wouldn't attaching climate change to individual extreme weather events not give the false impression that climate change isn't happening when there aren't hurricanes?
 
D

Deleted member 48908

I fail to see how climate change activists will be appeased, does the weather forecaster have to say flooding that may engulf your house and endanger your life is caused by climate change each time they issue a warning in a live cycle event like Irma?

Wouldn't attaching climate change to individual extreme weather events not give the false impression that climate change isn't happening when there aren't hurricanes?
Which is why the actual climate scientists have said that there's no detectable relationship between hurricane activity and climate change.

The use of hurricanes to justify climate change weakens the argument, and gives the doubters more ammunition to say climate change isn't happening.
 

Tribal

Well-known member
Joined
May 10, 2017
Messages
3,206
Which is why the actual climate scientists have said that there's no detectable relationship between hurricane activity and climate change.

The use of hurricanes to justify climate change weakens the argument, and gives the doubters more ammunition to say climate change isn't happening.
I agree. Climate change is an fact but attributing each new hurricane event as a direct consequence is junk science. How about all the historical extreme weather events that we do know about through real research, do we attribute all of them to the understanding of their day, that they were judgements of god just because they happened in the era before climate change was a science?
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top