Trump Was Right? Climate Change Hoax Documented quoted Donald Trump as saying climate change was a “hoax” created by the Chinese. They also mentioned that he later said he was only joking about the creation comment but still repeatedly said climate change was “bullshit”, “nonsense” and a “hoax”. The serious question remains; who did create the climate change hoax and why do we have to joke about what no one dares to discuss?

I found the answer to who created the climate change hoax while researching a graduate thesis called “The Visual Framing of Climate Control in the New York Times 1851-Present”. The thesis tracks the history of climate change and found a correlation between major war events and images of climate change in the news. Before studying at UNLV I was writing alternative energy articles for Diesel Power magazine. I was told to stop criticizing the manufactures and to quit writing green articles. I was curious about the science of global warming although it helped my field with funding. I was a journalist and wanted to find a scientist to get some facts.

I contacted the geoscience department and they said I would have to take the science level class. So I did and got a B. I also came up with part of an enhanced weathering scheme using sonics, cavitation, and olivine flour to control carbon dioxide levels. What is a good CO2 level? Who decides? Will it make weather not change? Although the class was on the greenhouse effect we didn’t discuss any of these questions or the physics of it. So I contacted Dr. Oliver Hemmers who was the director of the Harry Reid Center for Environmental Science at UNLV. He studied at the Max Planck Institute and Berkley as a physicist. Turns out the physicists do not agree with the climate scientists as documented in the APS framing document on climate change. Even though he was very successful he was not re-signed during my student assistantship with him. I helped him with a presentation called “Why Climate Models Fail” which can be found on slideshare.

While studying the science I also studied the history. I found catastrophic environmentalism has deep roots and is cut from the same philosophical cloth as eugenics as Michael Crichton first noted. Thomas Malthus, Francis Galton, and Svente Arrhenius are all related grandfathers of climate change. John F Kennedy ridiculed Malthus and his pessimistic predictions in his last speech delivered to the National Academy of Sciences warning against weather modification. In the 1970’s the U.N. declared climate modification for military purposes illegal due to Operation Popeye and others. The military scientists jumped ship and subverted the environmental movement.

Gregory Bateson was responsible for climate change propaganda including the movie “Circuit Earth” which was released on the first Earth Day. Interestingly Earth Day was created by population controllers including Gaylord Nelson, Fred Dutton, and many other liberal elites– not grassroots organizers. The movie which includes other such as Paul Ehrlich and Alan Watts, warned of a coming ice age due to human activity. Allen Ginsberg helped make the movie but not before he was given LSD at Stanford by Gregory Bateson. Many others were given LSD as documented by John Mark in his paper “The Search for the ‘Manchurian Candidate’: The CIA and Mind Control: The Secret History of the Behavioral Science”.

The liberal hero Gregory Bateson and his climate change supporters would probably not want the developing world to know why it really wants to limit carbon dioxide emissions. It’s not to save the planet but to create a better form of colonialism through CIA activities. This is documented in David Price’s paper “Gregory Bateson and the OSS: World War II and Bateson’s Assessment of Applied Anthropology”. In it he said “Bateson wants to strive for a new and improved colonial system”. Bateson was married to Margret Mead who wrote “Atmosphere: Endangered and Endangering” a climate alarmist book which was supported federally by the National Institute of Health.

Screenshot 2016-07-04 at 9.34.50 AM

Screenshot 2016-07-04 at 9.24.01 AM.png

Bjorn Lomborg writes about how it is unfair to invest so much into climate change since it diverts money from the common sense approach of fighting poverty. I think that’s what Trump was arguing in one of his tweets “Give me clean, beautiful healthy air” this is common ground we can all agree on. Andrew Ross mentions another challenge the alarmists must face, “No one needs to doubt the urgency of the greenhouse problem to recognize that any Western suggestion of standards for the development of other countries is also a reinforcement of the long history of colonial underdevelopment of the non-European world.”


The Original Captain Trips

by Todd Brendan Fahey

Published originally by High Times, November 1991

thinflagBefore Sergeant Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band…before Timothy Leary…before Ken Kesey’s band of Merry Pranksters and their Electric Kool-Aid Acid Tests…before the dawn of the Grateful Dead, there was Alfred M. Hubbard: the Original Captain Trips.

You will not read about him in the history books. He left no diary, nor chatty relatives to memorialize him in print. And if a cadre of associates had not recently agreed to open its files, Captain Alfred M. Hubbard might exist in death as he did in life–a man of mirrors and shadows, revealing himself to even his closest friends only on a need-to-know basis.

They called him “the Johnny Appleseed of LSD.” He was to the psychedelic movement nothing less than the membrane through which all passed to enter into the Mysteries. Beverly Hills psychiatrist Oscar Janiger once said of Hubbard, “We waited for him like a little old lady for the Sears-Roebuck catalog.” Waited for him to unlock his ever-present leather satchel loaded with pharmaceutically-pure psilocybin, mescaline or his personal favorite, Sandoz LSD-25.

Those who will talk about Al Hubbard are few. Oscar Janiger told this writer that “nothing of substance has been written about Al Hubbard, and probably nothing ever should.”

He is treated like a demigod by some, as a lunatic uncle by others. But nobody is ambivalent about the Captain: He was as brilliant as the noonday sun, mysterious as the rarest virus, and friendly like a golden retriever.

The first visage of Hubbard was beheld by Dr. Humphry Osmond, now senior psychiatrist at Alabama’s Bryce Hospital. He and Dr. John Smythies were researching the correlation between schizophrenia and the hallucinogens mescaline and adrenochrome at Weyburn Hospital in Saskatchewan, Canada, when an A.M. Hubbard requested the pleasure of Osmond’s company for lunch at the swank Vancouver Yacht Club. Dr. Osmond later recalled, “It was a very dignified place, and I was rather awed by it. [Hubbard] was a powerfully-built man…with a broad face and a firm hand-grip. He was also very genial, an excellent host.”

Captain Hubbard was interested in obtaining some mescaline, and, as it was still legal, Dr. Osmond supplied him with some. “He was interested in all sorts of odd things,” Osmond laughs. Among Hubbard’s passions was motion. His identity as “captain” came from his master of sea vessels certification and a stint in the US Merchant Marine.

At the time of their meeting in 1953, Al Hubbard owned secluded Dayman Island off the coast of Vancouver–a former Indian colony surrounded by a huge wall of oyster shells. To access his 24-acre estate, Hubbard built a hangar for his aircraft and a slip for his yacht from a fallen redwood. But it was the inner voyage that drove the Captain until his death in 1982. Fueled by psychedelics, he set sail and rode the great wave as a neuronaut, with only the white noise in his ears and a fever in his brain.

His head shorn to a crew and wearing a paramilitary uniform with a holstered long-barrel Colt .45, Captain Al Hubbard showed up one day in ’63 on the doorstep of a young Harvard psychologist named Timothy Leary.

“He blew in with that uniform…laying down the most incredible atmosphere of mystery and flamboyance, and really impressive bullshit!” Leary recalls. “He was pissed off. His Rolls Royce had broken down on the freeway, so he went to a pay phone and called the company in London. That’s what kind of guy he was. He started name-dropping like you wouldn’t believe…claimed he was friends with the Pope.”

Did Leary believe him?

“Well, yeah, no question.”

The captain had come bearing gifts of LSD, which he wanted to swap for psilocybin, the synthetic magic mushroom produced by Switzerland’s Sandoz Laboratories. “The thing that impressed me,” Leary remembers, “is on one hand he looked like a carpetbagger con man, and on the other he had these most-impressive people in the world on his lap, basically backing him.”

Among Hubbard’s heavyweight cheerleaders was Aldous Huxley, author of the sardonic novel Brave New World. Huxley had been turned on to mescaline by Osmond in ’53, an experience that spawned the seminal psychedelic handbook The Doors of Perception. Huxley became an unabashed sponsor for the chemicals then known as “psychotomimetic”–literally, “madness mimicking.”

But neither Huxley nor Hubbard nor Osmond experienced madness, and Dr. Osmond wrote a rhyme to Huxley one day in the early 1950s, coining a new word for the English language, and a credo for the next generation:

ImpTo fathom hell or soar angelic,

Just take a pinch of psychedelic.

* * *

Those who knew Al Hubbard would describe him as just a “barefoot boy from Kentucky,” who never got past third grade. But as a young man, the shoeless hillbilly was purportedly visited by a pair of angels, who told him to build something. He had absolutely no training, “but he had these visions, and he learned to trust them early on,” says Willis Harman, director of the Institute of Noetic Sciences in Sausalito, CA.

In 1919, guided by other-worldly forces, Hubbard invented the Hubbard Energy Transformer, a radioactive battery that could not be explained by the technology of the day. The Seattle Post- Intelligencer reported that Hubbard’s invention, hidden in an 11″ x 14″ box, had powered a ferry- sized vessel around Seattle’s Portico Bay nonstop for three days. Fifty percent rights to the patent were eventually bought by the Radium Corporation of Pittsburgh for $75,000, and nothing more was heard of the Hubbard Energy Transformer.

Hubbard stifled his talents briefly as an engineer in the early 1920s, but an unquenchable streak of mischief burned in the boy inventor. Vancouver magazine’s Ben Metcalfe reports that Hubbard soon took a job as a Seattle taxi driver during Prohibition. With a sophisticated ship-to-shore communications system hidden in the trunk of his cab, Hubbard helped rum-runners to successfully ferry booze past the US and Canadian Coast Guards. He was, however, caught by the FBI and went to prison for 18 months.

After his release, Hubbard’s natural talent for electronic communications attracted scouts from Allen Dulles’s Office of Strategic Services (OSS). Also according to Metcalfe, Hubbard was at least peripherally involved in the Manhattan Project.

The captain was pardoned of any and all wrongdoing by Harry S. Truman under Presidential Pardon #2676, and subsequently became agent Captain Al Hubbard of the OSS. As a maritime specialist, Hubbard was enjoined to ship heavy armaments from San Diego to Canada at night, without lights, in the waning hours of World War II–an operations of dubious legality, which had him facing a Congressional investigation. To escape federal indictment, Hubbard moved to Vancouver and became a Canadian citizen.

Parlaying connections and cash, Hubbard founded Marine Manufacturing, a Vancouver charter-boat concern, and in his early 40s realized his lifelong ambition of becoming a millionaire. By 1950 he was scientific director of the Uranium Corporation of Vancouver, owned his own fleet of aircraft, a 100-foot yacht, and a Canadian island. And he was miserable.

“Al was desperately searching for meaning in his life,” says Willis Harman. Seeking enlightenment, Hubbard returned to an area near Spokane, WA, where he’d spent summers during his youth. He hiked into the woods and an angel purportedly appeared to him in a clearing. “She told Al that something tremendously important to the future of mankind would be coming soon, and that he could play a role in it if he wanted to,” says Harman. “But he hadn’t the faintest clue what he was supposed to be looking for.”

In 1951, reading The Hibberd Journal, a scientific paper of the time, Hubbard stumbled across an article about the behavior of rats given LSD. “He knew that was it,” says Harman. Hubbard went and found the person conducting the experiment and came back with some LSD for himself. After this first acid experience, he had become a True Believer.

“Hubbard discovered psychedelics as a boon and a sacrament,” recalls Leary.

A 1968 resume states that Hubbard was at various times employed by the Canadian Special Services, the US Justice Department and, ironically, what is now the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. Whether he was part of the CIA mind-control project known as MK-ULTRA, might never be known: all paperwork generated in connection with that diabolical experiment was destroyed in ’73 by MK-ULTRA chief Dr. Sidney Gottlieb, on orders from then-CIA Director Richard Helms, citing a “paper crisis.”

Under the auspices of MK-ULTRA the CIA regularly dosed its agents and associates with powerful hallucinogens as a preemptive measure against the Soviets’ own alleged chemical technology, often with disastrous results. The secret project would see at least two deaths: tennis pro Harold Blauer died after a massive injection of MDA; and the army’s own Frank Olson, a biological-warfare specialist, crashed through a closed window in the 12th floor of New York’s Statler Hotel, after drinking cognac laced with LSD during a CIA symposium. Dr. Osmond doubts that Hubbard would have been associated with such a project, “not particularly on humanitarian grounds, but on the grounds that it was bad technique.”

[Note: Recently, a researcher for WorldNetDaily and author of a forthcoming book based on the Frank Olson “murder,” revealed to this writer that he has received, via a FOIA request of CIA declassified materials, documents which indicate that Al Hubbard was, indeed, in contact with Dr. Sidney Gottlieb and George Hunter White–an FBI narcotics official who managed Operation Midnight Climax, a joint CIA/FBI blackmail project in which unwitting “johns” were given drinks spiked with LSD by CIA-managed prostitutes, and whose exploits were videotaped from behind two-way mirrors at posh hotels in both New York and San Francisco. The researcher would reveal only that Al Hubbard’s name “appeared in connection with Gottlieb and White, but the material is heavily redacted.”]

Hubbard’s secret connections allowed him to expose over 6,000 people to LSD before it was effectively banned in ’66. He shared the sacrament with a prominent Monsignor of the Catholic Church in North America, explored the roots of alcoholism with AA founder Bill Wilson, and stormed the pearly gates with Aldus Huxley (in a session that resulted in the psychedelic tome Heaven and Hell), as well as supplying most of the Beverly Hills psychiatrists, who, in turn, turned on actors Cary Grant, James Coburn, Jack Nicholson, novelist Anais Nin, and filmmaker Stanley Kubrick.

Laura Huxley met Captain Hubbard for the first time at her and her husband’s Hollywood Hills home in the early 1960s. “He showed up for lunch one afternoon, and he brought with him a portable tank filled with a gas of some kind. He offered some to us,” she recalls, “but we said we didn’t care for any, so he put it down and we all had lunch. He went into the bathroom with the tank after lunch, and breathed into it for about ten seconds. It must have been very concentrated, because he came out revitalized and very jubilant, talking about a vision he had seen of the Virgin Mary.”

“I was convinced that he was the man to bring LSD to planet Earth,” remarks, Myron Stolaroff, who was assistant to the president of long-range planning at Ampex Corporation when he met the captain. Stolaroff learned of Hubbard through philosopher Gerald Heard, a friend and spiritual mentor to Huxley. “Gerald had reached tremendous levels of contemplative prayer, and I didn’t know what in the world he was doing fooling around with drugs.”

Heard had written a letter to Stolaroff, describing the beauty of his psychedelic experience with Al Hubbard. “That letter would be priceless–but Hubbard, I’m sure, arranged to have it stolen…. He was a sonofabitch: God and the Devil, both there in full force.”

Stolaroff was so moved by Heard’s letter that, in ’56, he agreed to take LSD with Hubbard in Vancouver. “After that first LSD experience, I said ‘this is the greatest discovery man has ever made.'”

He was not alone.

Through his interest in aircraft, Hubbard had become friends with a prominent Canadian businessman. The businessman eventually found himself taking LSD with Hubbard and, after coming down, told Hubbard never to worry about money again: He had seen the future, and Al Hubbard was its Acid Messiah.

Hubbard abandoned his uranium empire and, for the next decade, traveled the globe as a psychedelic missionary. “Al’s dream was to open up a worldwide chain of clinics as training grounds for other LSD researchers,” says Stolaroff. His first pilgrimage was to Switzerland, home of Sandoz Laboratories, producers of both Delysid (trade name for LSD) and psilocybin. He procured a gram of LSD (roughly 10,000 doses) and set up shop in a safe-deposit vault in the Zurich airport’s duty-free section. From there he was able to ship quantities of his booty without a tariff to a waiting world.

Swiss officials quickly detained Hubbard for violating the nation’s drug laws, which provided no exemption from the duty-free provision. Myron Stolaroff petitioned Washington for the Captain’s release, but the State Department wanted nothing to do with Al Hubbard. Oddly, when a hearing was held, blue-suited officials from the department were in attendance. The Swiss tribunal declared Hubbard’s passport invalid for five years, and he was deported. Undeterred, Hubbard traveled to Czechoslovakia, where he had another gram of LSD put into tablet form by Chemapol–a division of the pharmaceutical giant Spofa–and then flew west.

Procuring a Ph.D. in biopsychology from a less-than-esteemed academic outlet called Taylor University, the captain became Dr. Alfred M. Hubbard, clinical therapist. In ’57, he met Ross MacLean, medical superintendent of the Hollywood Hospital in New Westminster, Canada. MacLean was so impressed with Hubbard’s knowledge of the human condition that he devoted an entire wing of the hospital to the study of psychedelic therapy for chronic alcoholics.

According to Metcalfe, MacLean was also attracted to the fact that Hubbard was Canada’s sole licensed importer of Sandoz LSD. “I remember seeing Al on the phone in his living room one day. He was elated because the FDA had just given him IND#1,” says one Hubbard confidante upon condition of anonymity.

His Investigational New Drug permit also allowed Hubbard to experiment with LSD in the USA. For the next few years, Hubbard–together with Canadian psychiatrist Abram Hoffer and Dr. Humphry Osmond–pioneered a psychedelic regimen with a recovery rate of between 60% and 70%–far above that of AA or Schick Hospital’s so-called “aversion therapy.” Hubbard would lift mentally-disturbed lifelong alcoholics out of psychosis with a mammoth dose of liquid LSD, letting them view their destructive habits from a completely new vantage point. “As a therapist, he was one of the best,” says Stolaroff, who worked with Hubbard until 1965 at the International Federation for Advanced Study in Menlo Park, California, which he founded after leaving Ampex.

Whereas many LSD practitioners were content to strap their patients onto a 3′ x 6’ cot and have them attempt to perform a battery of mathematical formulae with a head full of LSD, Hubbard believed in a comfortable couch and throw pillows. He also employed icons and symbols to send the experience into a variety of different directions: someone uptight may be asked to look at a photo of a glacier, which would soon melt into blissful relaxation; a person seeking the spiritual would be directed to a picture of Jesus, and enter into a one-on-one relationship with the Savior.

But Hubbard’s days at Hollywood Hospital ended in 1957, not long after they had begun, after a philosophical dispute with Ross MacLean. The suave hospital administrator was getting fat from the $1,000/dose fees charged to Hollywood’s elite patients, who included members of the Canadian Parliament and the American film community. Hubbard, who believed in freely distributing LSD for the world good, felt pressured by MacLean to share in the profits, and ultimately resigned rather than accept an honorarium for his services.

His departure came as the Canadian Medical Association was becoming increasingly suspicious of Hollywood Hospital in the wake of publicity surrounding MK-ULTRA. The Canadian Citizen’s Commission on Human Rights had already discovered one Dr. Harold Abramson, a CIA contract psychiatrist, on the board of MacLean’s International Association for Psychedelic Therapy, and external pressure was weighing on MacLean to release Al Hubbard, the former OSS officer with suspected CIA links. Compounding Hubbard’s plight was the death of his Canadian benefactor, leaving Hubbard with neither an income nor the financial cushion upon which he had become dependent.

His services were eventually recruited by Willis Harman, then-Director of the Educational Policy Research Center within the Stanford Research Institute (SRI) of Stanford University. Harman employed Hubbard as a security guard for SRI, “although,” Harman admits, “Al never did anything resembling security work.”

Hubbard was specifically assigned to the Alternative Futures Project, which performed future-oriented strategic planning for corporations and government agencies. Harman and Hubbard shared a goal “to provide the [LSD] experience to political and intellectual leaders around the world.” Harman acknowledges that “Al’s job was to run the special [LSD] sessions for us.”

According to Dr. Abram Hoffer, “Al had a grandiose idea that if he could give the psychedelic experience to the major executives of the Fortune 500 companies, he would change the whole of society.”

Hubbard’s tenure at SRI was uneasy. The political bent of the Stanford think-tank was decidedly left-wing, clashing sharply with Hubbard’s own world-perspective. “Al was really an arch-conservative,” says the confidential source. “He really didn’t like what the hippies were doing with LSD, and he held Timothy Leary in great contempt.”

Humphry Osmond recalls a particular psilocybin session in which “Al got greatly preoccupied with the idea that he ought to shoot Timothy, and when I began to reason with him that this would be a very bad idea…I became much concerned that he might shoot me…”

“To Al,” says Myron Stolaroff, “LSD enabled man to see his true self, his true nature and the true order of things.” But, to Hubbard, the true order of things had little to do with the antics of the American Left.

Recognizing its potential psychic hazards, Hubbard believed that LSD should be administered and monitored by trained professionals. He claimed that he had stockpiled more LSD than anyone on the planet besides Sandoz–including the US government–and he clearly wanted a firm hand in influencing the way it was used. However, Hubbard refused all opportunities to become the LSD Philosopher-King. Whereas Leary would naturally gravitate toward any microphone available, Hubbard preferred the role of the silent curandero, providing the means for the experience, and letting voyagers decipher its meaning for themselves. When cornered by a video camera shortly before this death, and asked to say something to the future, Hubbard replied simply, “You’re the future.”

In March of 1966, the cold winds of Congress blew out all hope for Al Hubbard’s enlightened Mother Earth. Facing a storm of protest brought on by Leary’s reckless antics and the “LSD-related suicide” of Diane Linkletter, President Lyndon Johnson signed into law the Drug Abuse Control Amendment, which declared lysergic acid diethylamide a Schedule I substance; simple possession was deemed a felony, punishable by 15 years in prison. According to Humphry Osmond, Hubbard lobbied Vice-President Hubert Humphrey, who reportedly took the cause of LSD into the Senate chambers, and emerged un-victorious.

“[The government] had a deep fear of having their picture of reality challenged,” mourns Harman. “It had nothing to do with people harming their lives with chemicals–because if you took all the people who had ever had any harmful effects from psychedelics, it’s minuscule compared to those associated with alcohol and tobacco.”

FDA chief James L. Goddard ordered agents to seize all remaining psychedelics not accounted for by Sandoz. “It was scary,” recalls Dr. Oscar Janiger, whose Beverly Hills office was raided and years’ worth of clinical research confiscated.

Hubbard begged Abram Hoffer to let him hide his supply in Hoffer’s Canadian Psychiatric Facility. But the doctor refused, and it is believed that Hubbard buried most of his LSD in a sacred parcel in Death Valley, California, claiming that it had been used, rather than risk prosecution. When the panic subsided, only five government-approved scientists were allowed to continue LSD research–none using humans, and none of them associated with Al Hubbard. In 1968, his finances in ruins, Hubbard was forced to sell his private island sanctuary for what one close friend termed “a pittance.” He filled a number of boats with the antiquated electronics used in his eccentric nuclear experiments, and left Dayman Island for California. Hubbard’s efforts in his last decade were effectively wasted, according to most of his friends. Lack of both finances and government permit to resume research crippled all remaining projects he may have had in the hopper.

After SRI canceled his contract in 1974 Hubbard went into semiretirement, splitting his time between a 5-acre ranch in Vancouver and an apartment in Menlo Park. But in 1978, battling an enlarged heart and never far away from a bottle of pure oxygen, Hubbard make one last run at the FDA. He applied for an IND to use LSD-25 on terminal cancer patients, furnishing the FDA with two decades of clinical documentation. The FDA set the application aside, pending the addition to Hubbard’s team of a medical doctor, a supervised medical regimen, and an AMA-accredited hospital. Hubbard secured the help of Oscar Janiger, but the two could not agree on methodology, and Janiger bowed out, leaving Al Hubbard, in his late 70s, without the strength to carry on alone.

Says Willis Harman: “He knew that his work was done.”

* * *

The Captain lived out his last days nearly broke, having exhausted his resources trying to harness a dream. Like in the final fleeting hour of an acid trip–when the edge softens and a man realizes that he will not solve the secrets of the Universe, despite what the mind had said earlier–Hubbard smiled gracefully, laid down his six-shooter, and retired to a mobile home in Casa Grande, Arizona.

On August 31, 1982, at the age of 81, Al Hubbard was called home, having ridden the dream like a rodeo cowboy. On very quiet nights, with the right kind of ears, you can hear him giving God hell.


Climate Controllers & Media Bullshit Vs. Physics


Weathercasters will soon need a permit in order to legally broadcast the weather. Fortunately Jason Samenow already has his Digital Seal of Approval from the National Weather Association so we can believe everything he says? In his recent article “Top science groups tell climate change doubters in Congress to knock it off” he said, “Of prominent U.S. scientific organizations, only the American Physical Society (APS) abstained from participating in both the 2009 and 2016 letter efforts”. No big deal right? Who needs physics when we have “scientific truth” via expensive and complicated climate models? Who needs physics when we have the climate nod coming from the American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists?

Wait a second. All the societies listed by the letter don’t study the mechanism of the greenhouse effect. They think it doesn’t need studying since its all figured out so instead they only study the effects of the warming without understanding or measuring the mechanism. For example convection and clouds are impossible to model currently. So was the ice increase in Antarctica, the warming that supposedly went into the ocean instead of the atmosphere as predicted, and the 7 day weather forecast. Here are some reasons why.

The assumed CO2 caused positive feedback of water vapor having a huge warming forcing is questionable and not easily measured. So are the perfect black body radiation calculations which say there would be a 33 K temperature difference between Earth with and without GHG. Remember water vapor is the most powerful GHG accounting for about 60% of the warming. Remember also that when it rains and gets cloudy it cools so you can see now how complicated and confused the greenhouse effect theory is. What else can you expect from a theory that is wrong on the face of it and introduced by a eugenics hero? For example a black steel box generates a “greenhouse effect” since blocking convection winds is the reason for the temperature increase. Changing the glass doesn’t have much of an effect on temperature inside but adding CO2 does increase growth and lessen the need for water. Also we are coming out of an ice age which caused CO2 levels to plunge to the point where plants almost died from lack of air. Thank God we live on a tiny interglacial period of warmth surrounded by valleys of prolonged icy death which is due to come back anytime now.

There is another problem since agreeing with climate change is a conflict of interest for those who receive $2 billion a year since 1993 (source GAO). Although these elite societies might understand fish and crawling things (due to their vacation trips) they admittedly do not know much about the underlying physics concerning the greenhouse effect. Furthermore many do not practice science according to traditional scientific method instead they have a new science based on computer modeling.

Back to Samenow’s article he then misleads the audience by saying, “Though the APS statement about climate change is more nuanced than the AAAS letter, stating — for example — ‘scientific challenges remain in our abilities to observe, interpret, and project climate change,’ it in no way disputes the scientific consensus on climate change or the risks it poses.” This is absolute bullshit to anyone who has read the APS statement. First of all the AAAS letter was written for 5 year-olds and is found in its entirety below. On the other hand the APS statement is 14 pages long, contains graphs, and big words. Furthermore it does dispute the findings of the IPCC. Here is one of the many scathing but totally ignored questions from the APS:

“The earth’s climate stems from a multi-component, driven, noisy, non-linear system that  show temporal variability from minutes to millennia. Instrumental observations of  key physical climate variables have sufficient coverage and precision only over the past 150 years at best and usually much less than that).   Many different processes and phenomena will be relevant and each needs to be “gotten right” with high precision if the response to anthropogenic perturbations is to be attributed correctly and quantified accurately. For example, a change in the earth’s average shortwave albedo from 0.30 to 0.29 due changing clouds, snow/ice, aerosols, or land character would induce a 3.4 W/m2 direct perturbation in the downward flux, 50% larger than the present anthropogenic perturbation.

Moreover, there are expected feedbacks (water vapor-temperature, ice-albedo, …) that would amplify the perturbative response by factors of several. How can one understand the IPCC’s expressed confidence in identifying  and projecting the effects of such  small anthropogenic  perturbations in view of such difficult circumstances?”

Looks like Samenow left that part out? Do you think our politicians will listen to the simple letter from their superiors or the complicated one from experts?

Remember science and physics is not a democracy. Consensus has no power in this realm.


June 28, 2016

Dear Members of Congress,

We, as leaders of major scientific organizations, write to remind you of the consensus scientific view of climate change.

Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorousscientific research concludes that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the

primary driver. This conclusion is based on multiple independent lines of evidence and the vastbody of peer-reviewed science.

There is strong evidence that ongoing climate change is having broad negative impacts on

society, including the global economy, natural resources, and human health. For the United States, climate change impacts include greater threats of extreme weather events, sea level rise, and increased risk of regional water scarcity, heat waves, wildfires, and the disturbance of biological systems. The severity of climate change impacts is increasing and is expected to increase substantially in the coming decades.1

To reduce the risk of the most severe impacts of climate change, greenhouse gas emissions mustbe substantially reduced. In addition, adaptation is necessary to address unavoidable consequences for human health and safety, food security, water availability, and national security, among others.We, in the scientific community, are prepared to work with you on the scientific issues important to your deliberations as you seek to address the challenges of our changing climate. American Association for the Advancement of Science

American Chemical Society

American Geophysical Union

American Institute of Biological Sciences

American Meteorological Society

American Public Health Association

American Society of Agronomy

American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists

American Society of Naturalists

The conclusions in this and the preceding paragraph reflect the scientific consensus represented by, for

example, the U.S. Global Change Research Program, the U.S. National Academies, and Intergovernmental

Panel on Climate Change. Many scientific societies have endorsed these findings in their own statements,

including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Chemical Society,

American Geophysical Union, American Meteorological Society, American Statistical Association,

Ecological Society of America, and Geological Society of America.

American Society of Plant Biologists

American Statistical Association

Association for the Sciences of Limnology and Oceanography

Association for Tropical Biology and Conservation

Association of Ecosystem Research Centers

BioQUEST Curriculum Consortium

Botanical Society of America

Consortium for Ocean Leadership

Crop Science Society of America

Ecological Society of America

Entomological Society of America

Geological Society of America

National Association of Marine Laboratories

Natural Science Collections Alliance

Organization of Biological Field Stations

Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics

Society for Mathematical Biology

Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles

Society of Nematologists

Society of Systematic Biologists

Soil Science Society of America

University Corporation for Atmospheric Research


Why TV Weathercasters Matter for Communicating Climate Change





Jason Thompson

A paper submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Arts – Journalism and Media Studies

Hank Greenspun School of Journalism and Media Studies Greenspun College of Urban Affairs The Graduate College

Dr. Paul Traudt, Associate Professor

JMS 730: Journalism and Media Theory

 University of Nevada, Las Vegas

December 2015



Observing, reporting, predicting and believing one has control over the weather has had a perennial importance to society for many reasons ranging from the practical to the deep psychological. This research highlights why weathercasting matters for communicating climate change according to scant prior academic literature. It also is a preliminary beginning to future content analysis, agenda-setting, and media effects studies which should examine the relationship between climate change messages from television (TV) weathercasters and audience opinions regarding climate change as an important issue.




This research examines the relationship between climate change[1]  messages from television (TV) weathercasters and audience opinions regarding climate change as an important issue. The main reason for looking at this is “despite being one of the most important societal challenges of the 21st century, public engagement with climate change currently remains low in the United States (van der Linden, Maibach & Leiserowitz, 2015, p. 758). Although “many millions of dollars have been poured into outreach and advocacy efforts…we have failed to build the political will needed for significant national climate policy” (Luers, 2013, p.14).  A possible reason for this failure is “advocates have not effectively engaged the public, especially at the grassroots level” (p. 13). A recent national survey supports Luers’ previous statement since it found the public did not rank climate change as an important public policy issue (Pew Research Center, 2009a). A “multilevel regression and poststratification model” (Howe, Mildenberger, Marlon & Leiserowitz, 2015, p. 596) found 36% of the United States public opposed “setting strict CO2 limits on existing coal-fired power plants” (Yale Project on Climate Change Communication, 2014). Climate change policy opposition in the United States has been one of the major factors behind the failure to pass a “legally binding treaty…[since]…it would be dead on arrival on Capitol Hill without the required two-thirds majority vote in the Republican-controlled Senate” (Davenport, 2015, p. A10). In order to better understand this communication breakdown between climate change messages from the IPCC and the United States public one should investigate the science communicators the public has been engaged with including scientists, the media, and interpersonal communication. This research discounts the messages sent directly from the scientists in the form of journal articles and public talks since these communications do not have a mass audience. The interpersonal communication category was not investigated since the majority of the public’s acquaintances do not have access to supercomputers, satellites, and ice core samples.[2] This leaves the media as the major category one should study in order to understand how IPCC messages effect the public. This is because;

In choosing and displaying news, editors, newsroom staff, and broadcasters play an important part in shaping political reality. Readers learn not only about a given issue, but also how much importance to attach to that issue from the amount of information in a news story and its position. (McCombs and Shaw, 1972, p. 176).

Since “the mass media may well determine the important issues—that is, the media may set the ‘agenda” (McCombs and Shaw, 1972, p. 176) if TV weathercasters failed to report what many climate scientists were saying this could have been a major factor which kept climate change off the public’s radar considering important issues.

The Obvious Overlooked

An army of communication researches have studied the “role of media in climate change communication” (Schäfer, & Schlichting, 2014, p. 142) for example a meta-analysis from 2014 looked at “133 studies”[3] (p. 142). It found “activity has risen strongly over time” and “scholarship in the field still concentrates strongly on Western countries and print media” (p. 142).  For example according to the meta-analysis 67.5% of the articles focused on print media, 12% looked at TV, and 17% analyzed online sources including blogs (p. 151). The relatively low amount of analysis regarding TV is interesting since TV weathercasters are the “only source of scientific information that some people encounter on a regular basis” (Wilson, 2008, p. 73) and are “the most-watched part of the local newscast” (p. 73). Furthermore according to survey results weathercasters “agreed’ (19%) or ‘strongly’ agreed (10%)…that ‘global warming is a scam” (Wilson, 2009, p. 1457) this percentage increased to 27% when the same question was asked for a later larger survey (Maibach, Wilson & Witte, 2010, p. 4). Since science researchers have said weathercasting has been “all but ignored” (Henson, 2010, p. xi) and “scholarly journals in journalism and communication have eschewed the study of television weathercasters” (Wilson, 2008, p. 75; Meister, 2001, p. 416; Vannini & McCright, 2007, p. 50) further investigation into this topic is warranted.

This paper contends television weathercasts provided a powerful agenda-setting effect regarding the importance the public places on climate change as an issue. It is presumed that when the public thinks climate change is an important issue it will then lead to political changes.  This research intends to highlight the correlation between the frequency of climate change mentioned or depicted in television weathercasts and audience opinions regarding the importance of climate change. For example “despite the high profile of global warming as an issue critical to society, and its obvious connection to weather and climate, the topic elicited large helpings of both skepticism and silence from weathercasters” (Henson, 2010, p. 20) and survey results reported global warming last on the list of 20 possible policy priorities according to the public (Pew Research Center, 2009a).

This descriptive research intends to map out and summarize the academic literature on TV weathercasters. After the report and analysis on what is known regarding this topic it will point out where more work is needed as it relates to climate change communication. Four categories were created that represent what is known regarding TV weathercasters. The first section described the nature of TV weathercasters throughout history. It named some prominent TV weathercasters and described what messages they broadcasted and to whom. In the second section this research reviewed academic literature which explored why weathercasting matters. In the third section this paper examined who (or what organizations) helped set the agenda for TV weathercasters. In other words it will look at the forces that have possibly shaped the opinion of TV weathercasters and why. Then in section four in preparation for a first ever content analysis on the frequency of climate change messages during TV weathercasts anecdotal accounts of weathercasters denying climate change were gathered from the literature for categorization. This along with the survey results of weathercaster and public opinions concerning climate change could help with the creation of a coding instrument for the content analysis[4]. Once the content analysis is finished both an agenda-setting and media effects study could be conducted. In preparation for those studies examples that could help guide their creation were noted from the communication literature. This and other things we do not know about regarding TV weathercasts as it relates to climate change and public opinion of climate change was described in greater detail in section five.

  1. The Who, What, Where & When Regarding TV Weathercasters

Robert Henson did a good job explaining the origins of TV weathercasters. He did this by describing who they were, what they reported, where they reported from, and when they did it–in his history of weather broadcasting. Henson noted early weathercasting pioneer Jim Fidler “Radio’s Original Weatherman” but “Officially Jimmie is known as James C. Fidler Co-Operative Observer U.S. Weather Bureau” and his early reports (Henson, 2010, p. 7 & 8; Fidler, 1938). Eventually “Fidler moved to television…where he used a straightforward format similar to that of his radio show” (Henson, 2010, p. 7). Also Henson notes “it took President Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal to make weather a standard part of radio” (p. 6). Another boost came after World War II because “the war effort had trained thousands of enlisted men in meteorology” (p. 9). For example “Washington, D.C., got its first television weather in 1948 from Louis Allen…Allen’s meteorological background came from service in the navy; he was among the forecasters of sea and swell conditions for the pivotal U.S. invasions of Iwo Jima and Okinawa” (p. 9). Also a technological factor was added since “the number of sets in use soared to 3.6 million in 1949 and 9.7 million in 1950, with far greater growth to come over the next few years” (p. 9).

What television weathercasters were broadcasting has changed throughout the years. For example “New York City’s first television weathercast appeared October 14, 1941, on experimental outlet WNBT (later to become WNBC). The star was Wooly Lamb, an animated creature that remained on WNBT for seven years” (p. 7). This silly weathercaster was replaced with more serious stars possibly because after “20 years of traumatic world events behind them, the U.S. public of the late 1940s took its news seriously” (p. 9). By the 1950s the weathercast had turned silly again. According to Henson this was “TV weather’s wildest and most uninhibited period, the age of puppets, costumes, and ‘weathergirls” (p. 11). In response “AMS hierarchy” decided to issue an “AMS seal of approval…approved in a May 1955 meeting of the AMS council” (p. 14). Although the “AMS seal vastly improved the status of serious weathercasters… ‘happy talk’…drastically altered local news and weather” (p. 15). Instead of separate segments “the news ‘team’ was now instructed to make conversation that bridged gaps between segments…joking, amiable weathercasters suited such a format” (p. 15). Storms and dangerous tornadoes from the 1970s (p. 16) and a graphical revolution in the 1980s (p. 16) helped return a serious approach to weathercasting.

Another force called The Weather Channel (TWC) helped bring TV weathercasts to “75 million homes” by 1999 (Batten, 2002, p. 162). Also one researcher noted that in 1996 TWC received “15 million viewers a day” (Sturken, 2001, p. 167). These are some serious statistics considering media saturation. TWC first aired in 1982. The story of its creation according to Frank Batten, chairman of Landmark Communications is as follows:

By this time next year, we’ll be offering the nation’s first all-weather television programming. It will be all weather, twenty-four hours a day…First, silence. Then a collective groan went up from the audience…Isn’t this a waste of a scarce transponder? Who will actually watch this stuff? (p. 3).


As it turns out many viewers tuned in for example in 2002 “the Weather Channel was the number one ‘news and information’ cable-ratings entity. (If you include ESPN in the ‘news and information’ category’ [the TWC was] number two” (Batten, 2002, p. 161 & 162). Two factors that helped TWC’s success was its “large investment in a satellite transponder”[5] (p. 83) plus a “black box” (p. 83) which enabled “cable operators to receive local weather forecasts” (p. 83). Another factor was its relationship with the National Weather Service (p. 70). As TWC grew “both the Carter and Reagan administrations targeted the 5,000 person NWS” (p. 70). Dr. Richard E. Hallgren “former IBM-er…became head of the NWS in 1979” and fought “off each round of proposed cuts” (p. 71). In meetings “Coleman told Hallgren that a key part of his plan involved displaying NWS severe-weather warnings and watches instantaneously—a public service that, again, would serve the purposes of both the NWS” and the TWC  (p. 71). Also most of TWC’s “content came directly from the National Weather Service” (p. 216). Perhaps surprisingly “anybody else who had the resources and the inclination to tap the NWS’s data stream could do so” (p. 216) and “that’s exactly what was beginning to happen in the mid-1990s” (p. 217). Batten was aware that “hundreds of Web sites were offering NWS-derived weather data” (p. 217) and that this was where the future of weathercasting was headed. Next this research examined the deeper reasons for why TV weathercasting has had such a prominent position within audience mind frames.

  1. Why Weathercasting Matters

A concluding finding from a recent science communication article said television weathercasters were “perhaps the most visible and least understood science communicators in our culture” (Wilson, 2008, p. 85). Yet interestingly “a search of academic journals found limited research on television weather” (Wilson, 2008, p. 74). The small population that does exist in the communications and media studies fields used diverse methods from various fields including a rhetorical study (Meister, 2001, p. 415), surveys (Wilson, 2002, p. 246; Maibach, Wilson, & Witte, 2010), descriptive critical culture studies (Sturken, 2001, p. 161; Wilson, 2008, p. 78); socio-semiotics and critical discourse analysis (Vannini & McCright, 2007, p. 49), and social psychology (Gronbeck, 1997, p. 361).

According to a social psychology point of view “through technological framing, geographical roll calling, and temporal progress from past (today’s weather) to present (current conditions) to future (the forecast) the weather person works communal magic, not only scientistically predicting the weather but also articulating the lived conditions of a people” (Gronbeck, 1997, p. 366). Gronbeck contends that people watch the weathercast in order to help them “make meaning” (p. 372) and to “discover…[a] psychological coherence, [an] experiential sense of continuity, and [a] social assurance that comes from viewing television news programs” (p. 372). Essentially weather news “helps reinforce or reaffirm particular values” (p. 364) this probably includes ideas relating to climate change policy. Perhaps the weathercaster has taken the place of shamans of the past? This idea is hinted at by Gronbeck when he said a weathercast segment “presented a dazzling technological display under the seeming control of weather wizard Frary—weatherman as shaman” (p. 366).[6] Also another researcher citing Lessl said “television ‘acts as a tribal storyteller” (Meister, 2001, p. 417). In other words “television takes on the role of the bard, reflecting salient cultural messages that centralize cultural identity” (p. 417).

A critical culture study on TV weathercasting said the weather was now “a central part of hard news” (Sturken, 2001, p. 166). Although instead of fulfilling a deep human psychological need Sturken said the audience watches weathercasters for a source of “entertainment” (Sturken, 2001, p. 162). Also she said “emphasis on prediction [and control] consistently elides environmental issues… [for example TWC] …never discusses the current controversy over global warming” (p. 176). Instead they focus on how “weather is relevant to everyday activities” (Meister, 2001, p. 415). More specifically this “weathertainment’…predicates and encourages consumer practices” (p. 415).

Other researchers examined weathercasts through a socio-semiotic analysis and found “an obvious way in which humans relate to their biophysical environment is through everyday weather” (Vannini & McCright, 2007, p. 49). Also they stated talking about the weather is how people relate to each other for example it is “often the easiest and safest way to initiate a conversation” (p. 49). Another truism they stated was “weather reporting and forecasting clearly are important within mass media discourse” (p. 49). New information they sought to find surrounded how the “(military, scientific, and corporate) technocrats” had “incorporated weather reporting and forecasting into existing…orders of discourse” (p. 51). These ideological orders included “leisure, consumption, capital accumulation and risk management” (p. 49). Another researcher added to this idea when he said “Nature, with all its priestly and bardic tones to ‘ecology,’ ‘sustainable development,’ ‘sustainable agriculture,’ ‘business ecology,’ and ‘spirituality’ become intrinsic components in how we buy and sell nature” (Meister, 2001, p. 426).

Selling the weather has become big business (Seabrook, 2000, p. 44). For example “from 1989 to 1995, according to the Center for Media and Public Affairs, weather coverage wasn’t among the top-ten topics on the nightly network news. In 1996, it was eighth, and in 1998 it was fourth—more than eleven hundred weather-related stories ran altogether” (p. 44). Also Ungar used the “Vanderbilt University Television News Archives to determine if annual coverage given to heat waves, droughts, hurricanes and floods [had] increased on the network news between 1968 and 1996. An index of extreme weather events show[ed] a clear trend toward increased coverage, especially since 1988” (Ungar, 1999, p. 133). Interestingly this increase in weather coverage came at a time when the IPCC stated “there [was] no evidence that extreme weather events, or climate variability, [have] increased, in a global sense, through the 20th century” (Ungar, 1999, p. 133). Also Ungar found “no association between coverage of climate change and the overall coverage of extreme events” so something other than natural forces and anthropogenic climate change must be driving audiences to watch weathercasts.

Evidence that the TV weathercast is important also comes from its position in the newscast that is as a lead story or concluding segment. For example Gronbeck stated “the lead story[7] on Tuesday, March 23, 1993, concerned the danger of flooding in Cedar Rapids” (p. 364). This means “the news department decided that the most newsworthy information of the day related to preparing the citizenry for rampaging nature” (p. 364).[8] Also according to survey results “the traffic and weather components of the newscast increased by a smaller percentage (to 29% from 25%), but four in ten of the newscasts examined in the study led with a weather story” (Pew Research Center, 2013).

From this review it is clear that weathercasters serve an important role within society. Therefore a look at what drives weathercasts is key in order to gain further understanding regarding the agenda-setting effect of TV weathercasts on audience opinions regarding the importance of climate change.

  1. Who Sets the Weathercasters’ Agenda?

According to Robert Henson a science writer for the National Center for Atmospheric Research when weathercasters did discuss climate change it was

…usually addressed outside the confines of the weather segment itself, either in offhand comments tossed out before or after the segment or else in blogs, public talks, and other settings that allowed for more in-depth discussion. Bob Ryan, then at WRC, wrote a six-part series of articles on the case for climate change that were posted on WRC’s Web Site and promoted on the air in early 2009 (Henson, 2010, p. 20).

Another weathercaster Gene Norman (KHOU, Houston) echoed sentiments about the time constrained weathercast when he said, “My bottom line [about climate change] is I think something is happening….Is it human activity? I don’t know. I need to get better educated” (Henson, 2010, p. 198). Organizations such as the American Meteorological Society (AMS) with its station science initiative (AMS, 2015), the Yale Project on Climate Change with its 2009 workshop that brought weathercasters and climate scientists together, and the National Environmental Education Foundation which teamed up with the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research have all worked to help inform weathercasters about climate change. Also in 1997 President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore “invited a group of more than 100 weathercasters to the White House for a summit…some of the weathercasters were clearly impressed. Other remained dubious, seeing the gathering mainly in political terms” (p. 191). The following section describes those who have remained skeptical regarding climate change.

  1. Weathercasters as Climate Change Deniers

Although no content analysis has been done regarding TV weathercasts and their messages regarding climate change, evidence of skepticism is present. For example, AMS Past-President and current AMS Commissioner of Professional Affairs wrote in an article that, “alarmingly, many weathercasters and certified broadcast meteorologists dismiss, in most cases without any solid scientific arguments, the conclusions of the National Research Council (NRC), Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and other peer-reviewed research (Ryan & Toohey-Morales, 2007, p. 1164). Another example is Cecily Tynan, one of the weathercasters who remained dubious after the White House event. He said “global warming was ‘a theory that is widely accepted, but it’s still under debate in the scientific community” (Henson, 2010, p. 191). Tynan then “told viewers of WPVI in Philadelphia, as noted in the New York Times. ‘Judging by the P.R. event that was orchestrated here, it’s certainly become a very hot topic in the Clinton Administration” (p. 191). Also in “Cleveland, Ohio, at least four broadcast meteorologists expressed skepticism on climate change. ‘I have a hunch that in 10 years we’re all going to be longing for global warming because it will be so cold,’ Andre Bernier (WJW)—one of the two men on camera for The Weather Channel’s first-ever broadcast in 1982—told the Cleveland Plain Dealer in 2008” (p. 21). James Spann (WBMA, Birmingham, Alabama) weighed in on the controversy when he said, “I do not know of a single TV meteorologist who buys into the man-made warming hype. I know there must be a few out there, but I can’t find them” (p. 197). Also “all three staff meteorologists at KLTV, the ABC affiliate broadcasting to the Tyler-Longview-Jacksonville area of Northeast Texas, joined forces last November to deliver an on-air rebuttal of the idea that humans are changing the earth’s climate” (Dawson, 2008).

By comparison the weathercasters who supply doubt are fairly prominent in the news media compared to those who supply certainty–especially considering a conservative audience. For example Marc Morano former communications director for James Inhofe (, 2015) is a weathercaster who has a website called Climate Depot and a documentary called Climate Hustle. Also Anthony Watts is another popular weathercaster who has a website tagline that reads “The world’s most popular site on global warming and climate change” (Watts Up With That, 2015). Perhaps the most famous weathercaster who is also a climate change skeptic is “TWC founder John Coleman” (Henson, 2010, p. 198). In 2007, at San Diego’s KUSI, he called global warming “the greatest scam in history,’ echoing earlier remarks by Inhofe” (p. 198). This scam label was used in survey questions in order to gauge weathercasters’ opinions for example “global warming is a scam” (Wilson, 2009, p. 1457). According to Coleman, “Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create an illusion of rapid global warming” (Henson, 2010, p. 198). In order to measure the agenda-setting effect of TV weathercasts on audience opinions regarding climate change one must find out how many weathercasters share Coleman’s beliefs.

Thanks to an extensive census survey of 571 TV weathercasters we now have a pretty good idea considering what TV weathercasters think of climate change. For example “more than half of our respondents (54%) indicated that global warming is happening, 25% indicated it isn’t, and 21% say they don’t know yet” (Maibach, Wilson & Witte, 2010, p. 4). This question gauges whether or not weathercasters trust long term scientific data as Coleman made clear in his prior quote that he did not. This debate is exemplified by Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick graph and the legal battles that followed. It is noteworthy that barely half of all weathercasters agree with the mainstream scientific paradigm that holds temperatures have increased. Although it might complicate the question it is important to find out how much weathercasters think temperatures have increased.

According to the survey “about one-third (31%) reported that global warming is caused mostly by human activities, while almost two-thirds (63%) reported it is caused mostly by natural changes in the environment” (Maibach, Wilson & Witte, 2010, p. 4). This is an astonishing revelation considering television weathercasters sided more with The American Physical Society’s (APS) Climate Change Statement Review (CCSR) Workshop Framing Document[9] compared with IPCC findings. It would be interesting to find out how many weathercasters read the CCSR or if not what sources did they draw on to make up their opinion.

The survey also found “half indicated that they have thought ‘a lot’ about global warming, and a large majority said they are fairly or very well informed about the causes of global warming (93%), the consequences of global warming (89%), and the ways to reduce global warming (86%)—numbers that are much higher than public responses to the same questions” (Maibach, Wilson & Witte, 2010, p. 4). The responses about being informed were not too surprising considering weathercasters probably want to consider themselves very well informed. The big surprise has to do with the first question which reported half of all weathercasters have not thought about global warming very much. This response deserves further investigation

The next part of the survey addresses weathercaster opinions that directly relate to climate change as a policy issue versus a scientific and statistical one like in the prior questions. It was interesting that only about “half of weathercasters indicated that humans could reduce global warming (58%), and that the U.S. should reduce greenhouse gas emissions regardless of what other countries do (63%)” (Maibach, Wilson & Witte, 2010, p. 4). If 42% of all weathercasters think humans cannot reduce global warming it would not be surprising if a content analysis of their broadcasts reported a low frequency of climate change messages. The second question addresses issues relating to third world development and the rising emissions accompanying it. An argument can be made that since China’s emissions have increased so much it would negate emission cuts made by the developed countries. The counter-argument is that the developed countries could be a model for other countries to follow.

The following response pertains to scientific certainty regarding global warming since “almost half (47%) felt they needed some or a lot more information before forming a firm opinion about global warming, and almost one-third (30%) said they could easily change their mind about global warming” (Maibach, Wilson & Witte, 2010, p. 4). This is important because “just over one quarter (27%) agreed with the statement by a prominent TV weathercaster: ‘global warming is a scam” (p. 4). Once content analyses are completed, audience effects studies can determine if weathercasts have had a significant effect on audience opinions regarding climate change as an important issue.

  1. Audience Effects Regarding Weathercasts and Climate Change

In order to determine if and how TV weathercasts matter (when it comes to audience opinions regarding the importance of climate change) two studies should be completed. The first is an agenda-setting study which could be modeled after prior research (Wanta & Wu, 1992). Items to be considered include the construction of a “media issue concern index” (p. 851) which measures the amount of concern the audience places on certain issues. Also the then finished content analysis will need to be indexed as well. This will help measure audience exposure along with self-reported survey results. In the end correlations will reflect whether the data supports the agenda-setting function of TV weathercasts concerning the importance of climate change or not.

The second study which should be carried out involves finding whether or not weathercasts have had a direct effect on audience opinions regarding the importance of climate change. One study that could be used as an example looked at the effect Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC had on audience acceptance of global warming (Feldman, Maibach, Roser-Renouf & Leiserowitz, 2012, p. 3). It found “the evidence supported a model of direct persuasion, at least among Republicans” (p. 23). Another study which “conducted ordinary least squares (OLS) regressions” (Krosnick & Bo MacInnis, 2010, p. 2) that “predicted a series of outcomes” found “more exposure to Fox News was associated with more rejection of many mainstream scientists’ claims about global warming” (p. 2). Krosnick and MacInnis said “it was impossible to discern from these results what causal processes produced the observed relations” (p. 5). They ventured two possibilities one was Fox News exposure “caused viewers to adopt those positions” (p. 5) the other was selective exposure was at work. Although Feldman and others were able to rule out “biased processing, or motivated reasoning” (Feldman, Maibach, Roser-Renouf & Leiserowitz, 2012, p. 3).[10] If more information is obtained regarding TV weathercasts media effects studies could be carried out and will probably find similar results compared to those that examined Fox News.








TV weathercasters serve an important role in society yet they have been joked about[11] and mostly ignored by academic scholarship. A content analysis on depictions of climate change during TV weathercasts is critical in order to get a better understanding about what drives audience opinions regarding climate change. This could be the missing link that helps science communicators communicate climate change better. Assistance is needed since a recent survey “asked what set of issues are top of mind when thinking about their votes next year” (Wilson, 2015). It found 34% of all registered voters chose security as the most important issue and another 30% said the economy was the most important (Wilson, 2015). Climate change was not mentioned (Wilson, 2015). Although it can be argued that both security and the economy are directly connected to climate change and climate change policy so communicators do not have an uphill battle. By examining the prior academic and non-academic research one is able to conclude TV weathercasting matters to everyone but the majority of climate change communication scholars.










AMS (American Meteorological Society). (2015). Station scientist initiative. Retrieved from      initiative/


AMS (American Meteorological Society). (August 20, 2012). Climate change: An information                  statement of the American Meteorological Society. Retrieved from       ams-in-force/climate-change/


Coyle, P., Kemp, S., Koonin, S., Meyer, T., Rosner, R., & Seestrom, S. (2013). American

Physical Society climate change statement review: workshop framing document.

Retrieved from


Dawson, B. (2008). Why are so many TV meteorologists and weathercasters climate skeptics?       Retrieved from            meteorologists-and-weathercasters-climate-skeptics/


Davenport, C. (2015, November 30). As climate risks rise, talks in Paris set stage for action. The New York Times, p. A1 & A10. (2015). Marc Morano. Retrieved from



Feldman, L., Maibach, E. W., Roser-Renouf, C., & Leiserowitz, A. (2011). Climate on cable:       The nature and impact of global warming coverage on Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC.           The International Journal of Press/Politics, (17)1, 3-31.


Fidler, J. C. (1938). Popularizing the Weather Broadcast. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 19(9), 315.


Gronbeck, B.E. (1997). Tradition and technology in local newscasts; The social psychology of                  form. The Sociological Quarterly, 38, 361-374.


Henson, R. (2010). Weather on the air: A history of broadcast meteorology. Boston, MA:                          American Meteorological Society.


Howe, P. D., Mildenberger, M., Marlon, J. R., & Leiserowitz, A. (2015). Geographic variation in              opinions on climate change at state and local scales in the USA. Nature Climate Change, 5(6), 596-603.


Lazarsfeld, P. Berelson, B. & Gaudet, H. (1968). The people’s choice; how the voter makes up     his mind in a presidential campaign. Third Edition. New York: Columbia University                   Press.


Klapper, J. T. (1960). The effects of mass communication.


Krosnick, J. A., & MacInnis, B. (2010). Frequent viewers of Fox News are less likely to accept     scientists’ views of global warming. Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment, Palo          Alto, CA. http://woods. stanford. edu/docs/surveys/Global-Warming-Fox-News. pdf.             Accessed September, 1, 2012.


Luers, A. (2013). Rethinking US climate advocacy. Climatic Change, 120(1-2), 13-19.


Maibach, E., Wilson, K., & Witte, J. (2010). A national survey of television meteorologists about climate change: Preliminary findings. George Mason University. Fairfax, Va: Center for    Climate Change Communication. Retrieved from


Meister, M. (2001). Meteorology and the rhetoric of nature’s cultural display. Quarterly Journal   of Speech, 87(4), 415-428.


McCombs, M. E., & Shaw, D. L. (1972). The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public           pinion quarterly, 176-187.


Moss, N. & Corbin, D. (2008). Weather Shamanism: Harmonizing Our Connection with the                      Elements. Inner Traditions/Bear & Co.


Pew Research Center. (2009a). Economy, jobs trump all other policy priorities in 2009.      Retrieved from      policy- priorities-in-2009/


Pew Research Center (2009b). Fewer Americans see solid evidence of global warming.      Retrieved from            evidence-of-global-warming/


Pew Research Center (2013). Local TV news, facing challenges, turns to heavy diet of traffic,                     weather and sports. Retrieved from    news-facing-challenges-turns-to-heavy-diet-of-traffic-weather-and-sports/


Preiss, R. W. (Ed.). (2007). Mass media effects research: Advances through meta-analysis.            Psychology Press.


Ryan, B., & Toohey-Morales, J. (2007). Guest editorial: Communicating global climate change     to the public and clients. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 88(8), 1164-   1164.


Schäfer, M. S., & Schlichting, I. (2014). Media representations of climate change: A meta-            analysis of the research field. Environmental Communication, 8(2), 142-160.


Seabrook, J. (2000, April 3). Selling the weather. New Yorker, p. 46.


Sturken, M. (2001). Desiring the weather: El Nino, the media, and California identity. Public       Culture, 13(2), 161-189.


The Weather Channel. (October 30, 2014). Global warming: The Weather Channel position          statement. Retrieved from            warming-weather-channel-position-statement-20141029


Ungar, S. (1999). Is strange weather in the air? A study of US national network news coverage of             extreme weather events. Climatic Change, 41(2), 133-150.


van der Linden, S., Maibach, E., & Leiserowitz, A. (2015). Improving public engagement with                 climate change five “best practice” insights from psychological science. Perspectives          on Psychological Science, 10(6), 758-763.


Vannini, P., & Mccright, A. M. (2007). Technologies of the sky: a socio-semiotic and critical        analysis of televised weather discourse. Critical Discourse Studies, 4(1), 49-74.


Wanta, W., & Wu, Y. C. (1992). Interpersonal communication and the agenda-setting process.     Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 69(4), 847-855.


Watts Up With That? (2015). About. Retrieved from


Wilson, K. (2008). Television weathercasters as potentially prominent science communicators.                  Public Understanding Science, 17, 73-87.


Wilson, K. (2009). Opportunities and obstacles for television weathercasters to report on climate              change. Bulletin American Meteorology Society, 90, 1457-1465.


Wilson, R. (2015, December 8). Security issues give GOP an edge. Retrieved from


Yale Project on Climate Change Communication. (2014). Yale Climate Opinion Maps. Retrieved              from


Zaller, J. (1996). The myth of massive media impact revived: New support for a discredited idea.             Political persuasion and attitude change, 17-78.


[1] As described by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

[2] The interpersonal communication category of possible sources of scientific information consumed (or interacted with) by the public is a valid area of future study despite the mentioned shortcoming. Researchers found “while most studies have supported the basic agenda-setting hypothesis that the perceived importance of issues is influenced by press coverage, research examining the role of interpersonal communication remains a tangled web of contradictory results” (Wanta & Wu, 1992, p. 847). One factor to consider is the public might rely on “opinion leaders” (Klapper, 1960, p. 32; Lazarsfeld, Berelson & Gaudet, 1968, p. vi) they personally know in order to make their choices regarding scientific topics and issues. Research has found “mass communication ordinarily does not serve as a necessary and sufficient cause of audience effects, but rather functions among and through a nexus of mediating factors and influences” (Klapper, 1960, p. 8). Although ultimately these opinion leaders probably formed their opinions from other outside sources either directly from scientists or the media considering climate change.

[3] This is a relatively large number since similar meta-analyses considering agenda-setting studies found 90 articles (Preiss, 2007, p. 43) and one on media priming sampled 48 published articles (p. 62).

[4] According to Wilson “future research, including analyses of the kinds of science projects already being conducted [i.e. community service appearances] by television across the country, as well as content analyses of weathercasts themselves, are under way to better understand this science communication function more clearly” (Wilson, 2008, p. 85).


[5] TWC chose “RCA’s Satcom I, launched in 1975” (p. 57) since it “reached 95 percent of cable households in the United States” (Batten, 2002, p. 57).

[6] This idea was explored further in the book Weather Shamanism: Harmonizing Our Connection with the Elements. The forward by Martha Ward, research professor of anthropology, states “ancient spiritual ways of living with and learning from weather…have brought timeless wisdom and wit into working with clouds, water, wind, and the ethics of believing humans are in control” (Moss & Corbin, 2008, p. ix).


[7] A future content analysis could operationalize the frequency of when newscasts began with a weather related story.

[8] Critical culture studies on TV weathercasts also noted “one of the primary narratives governing the weather is that of revenge” (Sturken, 2001, p. 163). Sturken claims “its current manifestation…is…global warming caused by pollution” (p. 163) but was “originally a Christian narrative about the weather as a punishment for sins” (p. 163).

[9] The CCSR contains many questions that “highlight fundamental issues in current understanding of the physical basis of climate change” (Coyle et al., 2013, p. 1) including the attribution of natural versus man-made effects.

[10] Also other research has pointed to the possibility of a massive media impact (Zaller, 1996).

[11] In “Anchorman: The Story of Ron Burgundy (2004), a takeoff on 1970s ‘happy news’ formats, Steve Carell portrays Brick Tamland, a learning-disabled weathercaster” (Henson, 2010, p. 13).

Editor For Hire

imageHere is my old business card.

And writing examples:

Mulch Engine

image4 times as much energy is released as heat during mulch decomposition compared with burning it.

This machine captures heat and methane. In does this 24/7 and is energy dense enough to power a house and car.

As a side note mulch is a fire hazard but mixing it with decomposed mulch, rocks or soil might make it more safe as a ground cover.

Weaponized anthropology and sport

Gregory Bateson said “it is very important to foster spectatorship among the superiors and exhibitionism among the inferiors” (p.282)

This is only the tip of the iceberg. Bateson goes on to describe how colonialism can be improved. Many of his evil ideas are being carried out today. For example climate change his and Mead’s baby. His plans are wolves in Sheeps clothing. Nothing against wolves.

Cold war anthropology: Collaborators and victims of the national security state

David H. Price

David H. Price
Journal of Anthropological Research
Vol. 67, No. 3 (FALL 2011), pp. 333-356

Gregory Bateson and the Counter-Culture