They’re back. The mullahs of meteorology and climate

• 
  View Larger Image
  

I really wanted to be involved in the hierarchy that would help figure out how to address the climate agenda. I felt that, as someone who has been forecasting for over 50 years and relies on climate and past weather data, I could offer a different kind of input—one from the guy digging the ditch who has to deal with the fact that being wrong actually costs you something. I have always felt that the crucible of capitalism and competition will yield the best results. And certainly in a private sector that has to compete for a shrinking dollar, you cannot simply dismiss anything that may impact the forecast.

And the other thing: everyone in the administration’s hierarchy is smarter than me. I have no illusions about that. My dad used to say, “Never let on that someone might be smarter or stronger than you.” And certainly that was a driving factor before. But I like surrounding myself with people who are maxing out their strengths. Not that I want to be them, but I want to see what they are doing to make use of what they were given. That’s inspiring to me. I know that no one loves the weather more than I do, and no one will outwork me. There may be people who love it as much, or work as hard, but not more. That same father, a meteorologist who taught me a lot, once told me it was sad when I told him I didn’t think I could go a day without looking at weather maps. From the other side, my son said, “Dad, I love the weather, but you are ridiculous.” I guess I think it’s the only thing God gave me that I had until He took me. My parents are gone, people have come and gone, but the weather is always there. So I have gratitude for that. But I would love to have been a part of a group where I could listen to the reasoning behind ideas. How much of it is political, for instance. Or how much is strictly driven by a desire for the right answer. How much is because of economic realities. In the end, to me, the weather and climate have to be stand-alones, and the other items are a response to them, not the reason for an answer.

But now I am glad I am not involved. And that is a horrible thing to say, because of the reason. It has to do with what I was warning my colleagues about at the climate conference back in April. You can’t win with zealots unless you take away the reason for the zealotry. And since it’s not really about climate and weather, but control, they were not going away. Now look at what we are seeing. The recent shift in Congress and the Senate has emboldened that extremity, so people are going to be targets. Some of those people may be held “accountable” for actions they took because they believed it was the best course of action. Of course, it’s not only people in the administration involved with climate and weather; it’s across the board.

I have always had a variety of clients. If a client happens to be an oil company that needs a forecast (for instance, we have a colder December forecast than the standard, a strong El nino analog), even though December may not be cold compared to many others, it should be colder than the standard strong El nino. Here is the example

Strong el nino analog

Our idea relative to analogs

You start computing the difference in energy costs even though, by no means, it’s a frigid December we have, just not as warm, and it’s a big deal

But that’s seen as taking money from an oil company. Yet wind and solar are huge items we forecast for also. So does that put me in their pocket? Of course not. But it does to them. I found that out when I was making the Bill Nye movie as the villain. I was asked how much money I was getting from the Koch brothers because someone said they were paying me to say what I was saying. I have no idea who told them that, but I pointed to my 2007 Pontiac Firebird with a hole in the bumper and said, “How does a man getting rich off the Koch brothers drive that?” The fact is, if you did eliminate all non-wind and solar energy sources, that’s awesome for business. They need not only a seasonal forecast, but hour-by-hour forecasts. For instance, what does a 20-degree drop in a thunderstorm in Dallas do to demand? Or what if there is a prolonged heat wave in a big city, but the wind turbine source has light winds and is not producing? They need a forecast not only for an extended time period, but every day and every hour. Heck, why not just push wind and solar all the time if you are a forecaster? Now isn’t that an interesting question, as far as motivation goes? Mine is to look for trouble and forecast it, no matter who or what you are. I don’t care what your politics are. But think about this: some people say you should care what someone’s politics are and question their profit motive. I suspect they are seeing in others what they know about themselves. In addition, there won’t be much of a profit motive anymore if the kind of draconian policies we see being touted come to pass. (Another leftist motivation.)

But in climate and weather under Trump, it’s very educated people who decided to serve their country when called upon, and they may now wish they hadn’t. Or a ditch-digging forecaster (me—it’s okay, as Judge Smails said in Caddyshack, the world needs ditch-diggers too) thanking God he is not in that group.

I have always felt about the weather the way Larry Holmes felt about Joe Louis. I was once in the Commodore Inn, owned by Larry Holmes, and there were portraits of all the heavyweight champs. All of them had their names on the portraits, except one: Joe Louis. I asked the guy at the desk why he didn’t have a name on his. The guy responded, “Larry says Joe Louis doesn’t need an introduction.” Well, that’s the weather. It is so majestic it doesn’t need to be hyped and dragged into a political sewer, which is where this has gone. So much so that the hammer and sickle of intimidation is now something that has to be dealt with. Walking headfirst into a machine gun nest is not brave; it’s stupid. And that is what the whole political sewer has made this.

What is strange is watching the change in academia. When I was in college, almost all the profs were Democrats, as I was, but I never had a meteo prof who did not like to be challenged and argue a point. In Dr. Joel Myers’ class, he liked to compete so much that he set up a forecasting contest, and if you beat him, you would be offered a job at AccuWeather. But think about that. There he is, a PhD, acknowledged even then as doing something no one else would even try, and he is telling students to bring it on. I once got hurt in wrestling practice and was laid up in bed for two days (back). One of my profs called me and asked, “Where the hell have you been?” (Those of you who went to PSU in the ’70s in meteo probably know who that was.) I said, “I was hurt and couldn’t get out of bed.” He says, “Well, you have to call me if you are out, because I have to think about the lesson plan because I need to know that no one is going to argue with me.” As I said, it was bring it on.

Many years later, I heard in one of the classes at PSU that you had to email questions in a day before. But that is a symptom of what is most scary. A large part of the climate agenda is academics who seek to eliminate discussion, not enhance it. They believe that counterarguments to their ideas are destructive to the overall mission. If the overall mission is truly to find the right answer, that is not the truth. If it’s to push a set political agenda, of course it would be. Free speech is dangerous to a top-down control agenda. But what a flip. We go from teachers saying “Bring it on” to people determined to “shut it down.”

Planck once famously said

“Science advances one funeral at a time”

This is because, in his day, entrenched viewpoints were replaced only when those with the viewpoint died. And it was paraphrased by Bill Nye

Bill Nye on Climate Deniers: “There’s an old saying — ‘science proceeds one funeral at a time’, … but it’s not happening fast enough.”

Bill actually got a couple of things wrong here. 1) No one denies climate; it’s just him demeaning those who dare question attribution 2) This is not about science; it’s about a top-down control agenda 3) As for it not happening fast enough, well, it isnt for his political motivation

But think about what “Not happening fast enough” means. I asked the AI

Me: “But not happening fast enough.” Could that not be something that a fanatic would use as motivation to kill a so-called climate denier?

AI: Yes, a fanatic or extremist could interpret and use that phrasing as motivation or rationalization for violence.

Far-fetched? It used to be, but look at some of the things you see today. There is a well-known man-made global warming catastrophe pusher who said he had to quit his job over threats. I had to smile thinking about my late mother calling me up, crying, because she was worried about what might happen to me because of what she was reading on the internet.

BTW, I don’t think Bill himself was threatening anyone. I think he was stating a fact because of what he believes. But again, a guy like Bill Nye is a science hero many of the current generation of man-made climate catastrophe pushers grew up watching. People ask me about him, and I say, well, obviously I disagree with him on the issue of the attribution of man-made climate change, but the total picture of what he did, bringing science to the forefront, is immense. He has an immense following; some of them are willing to destroy paintings worth more than what people think a human life is worth in the name of saving the planet (ironic, destroying evidence of humanity’s advancement on the planet in an effort to save it). But “not happening fast enough”? Given what we are seeing today? Interesting.

But it’s scary that this is what it’s come to. That when you write or say something, instead of laying out a pathway to an answer, you are thinking about people wishing that funerals of people like me would happen fast enough.

Effectively, the way to kill the debate is to destroy the people who dare debate with you

All in the name of saving the planet and democracy. They have adopted the Marxist mantra of ” You have to break a few eggs to make an omelet.”

The mullahs of meteorology and climate did not go away. They won’t go away. And now they are coming back, and they are mad. And the very party that, when I went to school, advocated a way that I believed in and adopted now wishes to destroy it. Not with something that will advance mankind, but instead to send it into the abyss of curtailed freedom.

The times are changing, but not for the better.