October 22, 2007 - Media critic Brian Lambert, on the importance of TV weathermen speaking their minds on global warming:
Not that I look to TV weather people for any great depth of science, much less a political point of view. But the perhaps sad fact is that for a lot of folks the TV weather anchor is their most frequent interface with meteorological science. With that in mind, and with climate change as profound an issue to everyone as it is (with or without Al Gore, although Gore's knee-jerk adversaries seem incapable of separating the two), it seems valid to me that those charming, glib people clicking through the weather maps offer a clue to their, uh, educated opinion on climate change.
I've mentioned this before, but here in the Twin Cities, WCCO's Paul Douglas is, for all intents and purposes, alone in his unconditional view that climate change is upon us, it is serious and human activity is a key component. This is to Douglas's eternal credit and, to my mind anyway, greatly enhances his credibility.
May 20, 2008, media critic Brian Lambert condemning a TV weatherman for speaking his mind on global warming:
The fundamental issue in this "debate" is, of course, politics, not science. Fringe groups such as the OISM, to which Mike Fairbourne lent his name, are invariably politically conservative --deeply conservative-- and attack "consensus science" of actual experts, as opposed to TV weathermen, bio-chemists, and whatever from a partisan political perspective much more than one based in science. (Their "science" is usually laughably mangled.)
Before you email Lambert recommendations for a good whiplash specialist, he does have a thread of consistency to his work. It's OK for local news personalities get out front of controversial issues, as long as they agree with the stridently liberal perspective. If not, prepare to be slimed.
I suppose this kind of standard makes for an effective liberal media watchdog and groupthink enforcement column. I just wish his would have been promoted as such in the Twin Cities for the past several decades, instead of as objective media criticism.
More from Lambert on why it's OK for Douglas to insert his global warming beliefs into the 5-day weather forecast, but not OK for Fairborne to sign a document testifying to his beliefs as a private citizen:
the critical difference here is between reputable climatologists -- professionals who have submitted their work to other professionals for review and independent study -- and those who aren't, like this Oregon Institute bunch, who are all too typical of what passes for "science" on the other end of this dispute. Yes, Paul Douglas lent credibility to the former, while Fairbourne has to the latter. It's the flat out difference between credible and ... bullsh*t.
Failure to recognize that some of the foremost experts in climate related science are skeptical of the agenda people like Lambert and Douglas are peddling is evidence that you're dealing with a fool or a con man. Generously assuming the former, here's a place the uninformed can start educating themselves on the science of the opposition:
Scientists Opposing the Mainstream Scientific Assessment of Global Warming