Ginger Zee, an ABC meteorologist for Good Morning America and World News Tonight was likened to a "pornographer" by network news media watchdog/consultant Andrew Tyndall because she talks about the weather rather than obsessing about climate change
If Ginger Zee reported in the role of climatologist rather than meteorologist, I would praise ABC's 'World News Tonight's' decision as a daring intervention into a crucial national and global debate, instead, she is more like a pornographer.Weather has become a particularly important part of ABC's nightly news broadcast, in fact according to the Associated Press, The correspondent most frequently seen on either ABC, CBS or NBC's evening newscasts this year doesn't work out of the White House or some overseas trouble zone. It's Ginger Zee, ABC's chief meteorologist.
Apparently "weather porn" is a pejorative term by meteorologists to describe reports about harsh weather storms like hurricanes or tornadoes.
Washington Post weather editor
This unflattering portrayal of Zee and her work is uncalled for.
Zee has earned accolades for on-the-ground coverage of some of the most devastating storms to afflict the U.S. in recent years, from Superstorm Sandy to the Moore and El Reno, Okla. tornadoes.This video is an example of what Smith was talking about
“I was left speechless by [Tyndall's] comment,” blogged Mike Smith, a senior vice president at AccuWeather Enterprise Solutions. “Ginger is an extremely hard working, agenda-free scientist who does a terrific job in a position with tight constraints. Calling her a pornographer is beyond the pale.”
Andrew Tyndall's name calling is typical of the global warming supporters. As evidence builds against their hypothesis which they cannot rebut, they rely on name calling, skeptics are called flat-Earthers, deniers, anti-science and worse. Ms Zee may very well be a believer in warming but because she does her job and talks about the weather she is called names. It's a very childish response for a very desperate climate change believing community.
17 comments:
It's also sexist.
Hey, if it's good for the goose...
There is no empirical evidence that CO2 emissions are a significant cause of atmospheric global warming. The theory that catastrophic global warming is caused by CO2 emissions is based on an unproven theory and computers which overemphasize CO2's role in climate change and de-emphasize the role of clouds, solar cycles, ocean cycles and other natural causes of climate change. These computers have been notoriously wrong almost all of the time (when compared to real world data) and have been compared to a sports team that played the entire season without winning a game. Computers that model an imaginary planet and are programmed with guesses of a few of the many variables affecting climate are not data or empirical evidnce.
During the last ice age CO2 levels fell to 180 ppm and plants started to shut down. If CO2 levels had reached 150 ppm or lower, plants would have died off and all plant and animal life on the planet would have died. We currently have global CO2 levels at just under 400 ppm. Green houses regularly keep CO2 concentrations at 1000-1200 ppm because the plants grow better. In the past, CO2 levels have been at several thousand parts per million and plants and animals thrived. US submarines try to keep CO2 levels below 8,000 ppm. Federal OSHA standards set CO2 maximums at 5,000 ppm. We are much closer to being CO2 deprived than we are being threatened by too much atmospheric CO2. Plants thrive on more CO2- that is a good thing. CO2 is not a pollutant. It is a colorless and odorless gas that comprises only .04% of the atmosphere. The most predominant greenhouse gas is water vapor.
The world has not experienced atmospheric global warming in the past 18 years despite increasing CO2 emissions during this period. If CO2 was a direct and significant cause of global warming, we would have experienced global warming during the 18 year pause. We did not.
Climate change is natural and has been occurring since the formation of the planet. The 18 year pause just proves that the skeptics were right all along-natural causes of climate change are more powerful than the insubstantial effects that human generated CO2 has on the world's climate. The hysterics' alarms over CO2 causing catastrophic global warming have been described accurately as the flea wagging the dog.
Proof positive that CAGW is about power, politics and greed is the fact that every time the facts change, the CAGW cult moves the goal posts . They have at least 65 excuses for the more than 18 year pause in global warming and the failure of the CAGW climate models. The CAGW cult blames any unusual (but normal) climate event on global warming with no scientific proof. This is often done with a scary picture or one that pulls on the heart strings, and the text of the article will say "could be caused", "is consistent with", or "may be caused by" global warming. This is code for we have no scientific evidence but we want to scare you so we can tax CO2 and promote our political agenda.
The real Deniers are the CAGW believers who deny the scientific studies showing that CO2's role in global warming is not substantial and that nature (clouds, solar cycles, ocean cycles, and other natural causes) controls climate change. The CAGW believers deny nature. Ironic isn't it that so many who worship Gaia deny nature?
But there is plenty of scientific data which shows CO2 is NOT a driver of climate changes. It never has been and it never will be. This video explains the science:
Part 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFd4icZki4I
Part 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDm9b_69pDg
Andrew Tyndall's demented rant is typical of the far-left loons. When they don't have the science, this is all they have.
The Left is against the "War on Women" ... except when they're not.
#Hypocrisy
its amazing that people actually believe this hoax.'
there must be a ton of $ in it...
or they are just stupid.
its climate change now, in summer time its called global warming.
Meteorologist criticized for knowing the difference between climate and weather? Well that's a new one.
I criticize meteorologists who try to put a climate slant on weather reports.
The International Meteorological Organization defines climate as the average weather of a locality over a 30-year period.
So how can climate be part of a weather report? How can climate be "news"?
Well it's not. Climate reporting is either reporting scientific discoveries or it is climate politics. But it is not newsworthy.
"Weather porn" as a pejorative term should be reserved for reporters who claim that extreme weather is related to climate change.
There are other terms that are applied to scientists and politicians who link extreme weather events to climate change. But I am too polite to mention them.
Maybe Zee can pay tribute at the close of each night's broadcast by stating one of the many findings of Climate 'science' CliFi factoids. ex. "...and tonight's climate 'science' factoid is that Global Warming will make women's breasts bigger. Yes, we know this is a relief to women who were worried when just last week one of our Climate *science* factoids stated that Global Warming will shrink women's breasts. Tune in tomorrow when we learn that Global Warming will turn women into prostitutes."
There's been no statistically detectable increase of the global mean temperature in the last 2 decades, so this "global warming" obviously couldn't have caused anything.
But even if there were a uniform increase of the temperature across the globe, it wouldn't change anything about the weather to the leading order because all the weather, storms etc. is driven by temperature, pressure, humidity differences (and therefore gradients), not by their absolute value. The uniform increase just doesn't matter for anything else.
Dramatic weather events on Earth have been around for 4.5+ billion years and each single one of them was always weather. If the warmist aßhole isn't getting this point, he is not a far uglier than this very attractive, flawless report, but he is also vastly stupider – effectively a wild animal in comparison. He's only good as Ginger Zee's dinner assuming that she likes pork.
obama's a chickenshtit. netanyahuu is a leader of stature. it's like comparing pig slop with caviar. ignore obama. satan doesn't speak to ME.
Ironic considering those obsessing about the debunked catastrophic man made global warming are globalist whores and their shrill cries are the cries of new world order sluts in the throes of subservient ecstacy.
It is all a part of trying to keep the biggest hoax in the history of science (an the greatest financial hoax since the Egyptian priesthood conned the Pharaohs into letting them handle the construction funds for the pyramids) going as long as possible.
Good article, but the last sentence has a slight error. The AGW advocates are desperate, but not because they are an AGW "believing community" but because they realize that the hoax is falling apart and the public is wising up.
She's smmmmoking hot. So I'm glad she's not a fruitcake.
Based upon the science I learned in elementary school, pre global warming agenda, plants grow by converting CO2 into oxygen and sugar. That makes me pro keeping people from starving and pro oxygen in my book.
"...It's a very childish response for a very desperate climate change believing community."
"Desperate" perfectly describes the arguments put forth by the AGW supporters. Instead of sound rationale persuasive arguments backed up by logic and or common sense, we read ad hominem attacks against those not willing to convert to their faith. I suppose that calling for our arrest and incarceration instead of an outright jihad of beheading, is some consolation.
I've got your Warming, right here.
Climate change is a fact. That is not in dispute; climate has been changing and cycling long before humans crossed over the land bridge between Alaska and Siberia. Are we warmer than during the Little Ice Age; YES. Are we colder than during the Medieval Warming Period or the Roman Warm Period; YES. To say the man’s effect on the atmosphere compared to the natural forces is like comparing the height of a sheet of paper next to a ten story building. The argument between the Green Nazis and deniers is the effect of man. They are
arguing over” is the sheet of paper standing up on edge or lying flat next to the building.” The cost for “doing something” about climate change the eco-nazis want would be like insuring a $100,000 house for $10,000,000 and when something happens the policy will only pay out at $100 a month until the house
is rebuilt. If every single reduction for reducing man made climate change was done; kill off 6.5 billion people, eliminate all technology prior to 1900, enforce all CO2 emission standards in 10 years you would still only see a .0014 degree difference in 100 years from not doing any of these actions.
Post a Comment