(2).jpg)
The global warming debate is being decided in the
court of public opinion. Are climate change alarmists
hurting their own cause?
One of the most basic tenants of making a compelling argument can be summed up in one simple saying – “It’s not what you say, it’s how you say it.” Certainly the content and facts behind an argument are important but if the message isn’t delivered with tact, it will be lost and dismissed.
This is one essential fact that is lost on some global warming alarmists like Al Gore and James Hansen as we have pointed out before. Their tendency to exaggerate climate change concerns and make outrageous statements such as saying there are “four years to save the world” do not scare the populace into siding with them and in fact they have the opposite effect.
This past weekend one such alarmist, WHNT TV meteorologist Dan Satterfield, resorted to similar tactics in commentary he sent to one of his station’s viewers via Twitter and by proxy, questioned the Denver Weather Examiner’s climate change coverage. This episode serves to highlight one of the reasons that those that advocate the manmade climate change theory are losing ground in their fight for public opinion.
Dan Satterfield of WHNT, Huntsville, Alabama is an advocate
of the manmade global warming theory. His recent Twitter
comments draws attention to the fact that he may be doing
more to harm his cause than to help it.
Twitter user ‘backscatter’ posted a link to one of our articles discussing a new study that says nature is the primary driver behind climate change. Dan Satterfield, ‘danwhnt’ on Twitter, picked up on the link and immediately replied to backscatter saying, “That bastion of science the denver examiner [sic] – read the actual paper by chance? thought not.”
While we might be flattered to be considered a ‘bastion of science’ that of course is not how Mr. Satterfield intended it to be taken. He pressed the issue saying that claims that are contrary to the theory of anthropogenic global warming are “laughable to anyone who understands science” and then questioned backscatter’s education while touting his own. Backscatter as it turns out though holds a degree in electrical engineering so he would certainly be one who “understands science.”
just what is your background- I hv a BS Metr. and MS Earth Sci.
~ WHNT Meteorologist Dan Satterfield touting his credentials while questioning those of someone who disagrees with him
When the Denver Weather Examiner picked up on the debate, we sent a tweet drawing attention to it without offering any commentary. Satterfield then directly addressed us saying, “I could care less about the politics but if you are going to publish junk that is scientific garbage- I’m going to say so.”
The Denver Weather Examiner's tweets during the debate.
This was enough to draw the ire of a TV meteorologist and
global warming theory advocate.
This reply is perplexing considering that we never mentioned politics (or offered any commentary to Satterfield or the debate he was having with backscatter). His claim that the original article was “junk that is scientific garbage” is debatable. While he may not agree with its conclusions, the paper was peer reviewed and published in a major scientific journal. It was a news story and we reported it as such.
The Denver Weather Examiner also posts news articles giving both sides of the global warming argument. Just last week, in addition to the story that garnered the attention, we reported on a study that shows that climate change will result in a major increase in wildfires and another warning that El Niño and solar activity could warm the globe faster than previously expected.
We provide discussion from all angles with stories that support the manmade climate change theory and others that do not. In his blog, Satterfield says, “I do speak up when someone starts spreading propaganda disguised as Science.” We applaud this and while we respect the passion of those on both sides of the issue, all should remember that oftentimes "It’s not what you say, it’s how you say it.”
Therein lays the problem for climate change alarmists. They may have a compelling argument but the way some in their camp choose to state their case makes readers and viewers shrug their shoulders, shake their heads and ignore them.
Touting your resume while insinuating that someone who disagrees with you is uneducated certainly is not going to win many people to your side.
Touting your resume while insinuating that someone who disagrees with you is uneducated certainly is not going to win many people to your side. Further, throwing insults, berating and simply trying to shout down others who do not share your view accomplishes nothing and simply adds fuel to the fire for your opponent.
Those who disagree with the manmade climate change theory have longed for an open and honest debate on its merits, something which they say has never happened. That may or may not be but in the forum of public opinion, the debate is real and it is going on now as we have seen in the case discussed here.
Are they concerned that more scientists are coming out and stating their belief that man is not the primary driving force of the earth’s climate? Do they see the court of public opinion swaying against concerns about global warming? Whatever their reasons, how the argument is made may ultimately decide how the world tackles the issue and some climate change alarmists are their cause’s own worst enemy.
.jpg)
Comments
GREAT piece Tony, thank you and please keep up the good fight!
Geoff Caldwell
Wichita Independent Examiner
Great article!!!!! I'm sorry but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that the Global Warming Alarmists are 'out there' almost like a 'cult'. Normal people can understand science as well without needing a degree (maybe not the forumulas but the overall effects - yes).
When Congress refuses to allow opposing debates to Al Gore, you know that there is something 'rotten in the Capitol Building'.
Kimberly Morin
Boston Conservative Independent Examiner
So people other than those who tout their credentials aren't allowed to have an opinion on this? Then they should stop trying to get us all involved in the global warming issue.
Great story and what I would like to know is where the hell is this global warming since we have had no summer in Minnesota with record low temps.
One day, the global warming crowd will wake up and ask, what is that big burning orb in the sky? Then someone will tell them, it is the sun and it controls global warming and cooling.
I just hope they don't try and ban the "N Word" No, not that one, the WX N-Word Nitrogen. Just when a tiny bit of carbon was the problem, just wait until someone figures out that the "WX N Word" Nitrogen is all over the place and 78% by volume of Earth's atmosphere with only 21% of the air we breathe is Oxygen.
If you don't get the joke in this post, the normal atmosphere mix is 78%N to 21%O with 1% of everything else including CO2.
And while were on the Global Warming issue, what ever happened to Acid Rain? When I grew up in the 70s, I was told that all the lakes would die because of acid rain.
Tony,
I am a TV met with a degree who is a fellow skeptic. When I was writing for Examiner.com we would agree on a lot of issues. My credibility has been attacked because I lean towards the natural cause of climate change. One reader said I wasn't a scientist, but Cornell and the AMS have credited me otherwise. I also hold the CBM seal and taught college level meteorology and climate for 5 years. Dan Satterfield should know better if he does follow the science. Many more are questioning the human influence today. I hold an AMS seal, but do NOT agree with their stance on Climate Change. I am a scientist, and should be able to hold my opinion rather than follow the PR disaster in waiting like a lemming off of a cliff. Dan is in the public eye and should know better. While I am approached with this topic often, intellectual debate should trump personal attacks and belittling. I know you cover both sides, regardless of your personal views. That is true journalism!
Great article, Tony. I agree with you that his attack on your credentials was an ad hominem fallacy and good for you for calling him on it.
George Copeland
National RNC Examiner
www.copelandweb.com
To borrow a phrase from my children, "Are you done being all butt hurt?" Since you occupy one of the "bully pulpits" of the land, you're going to attract the ire of those who disagree with you. I'm sure you'll be facing much worse than what Dan Satterfield sent to you in a text message (which is what tweets are).
Perhaps I missed the point. If this blog is about your popularity, then I'm speaking out of turn here. If, as it appears, it is about weather and climate, then the real issue is the paper by McLean et al.
Your posts here seem to be endorsing a paper that has huge mathematical flaws in its analysis, as well as logical flaws. Are you aware of this?
By the way, since I was hearing about this indirectly on twitter, I think you should understand what had him spun up that evening.
Take a look at the "Science Fights Back" part of his blog at wildwildweather(dot)com(slash)forecastblog(slash), in particular the part about the death of a little girl.
Just an addenda to your thoughts at the beginning of this blog post. Until people like Gore and Hansen turned activist, the "dialogue" about climate change was pretty well one sided here in the U.S. It fell into the "golden rule", as in "He who has the gold makes the rules."
Yes, the medium is the message, and the fringe elements on both sides are destroying the credibility of the debate. On the other hand, in this age of "Reality TV" and "Jerry Springer" to get a significant part of the populace involved in the discussion, histrionics and conflict seem to be required.
"your background- I hv a BS Metr. and MS Earth Sci.", immediately lost any credibility with me as these new age subjects are just bogus religion with a thin veneer of scientific credibility. And it also shows the person simply lacks the experience to understand the real (not theoretical/alarmist) effects of long term trends and not all change is bad.
Personally these new trendy degrees would be laughable if they weren't filling young people with such unscientific rubbish.
Larry, thanks for your comments. Certainly this was not about an insult hurled at the Denver Weather Examiner’s coverage – much worse has been said before. :-) The point is much as you said in your second comment, “the fringe elements on both sides are destroying the credibility of the debate.” Civil debate on the merits of the issues and the science have been thrown out the window and in the process, no one is listening and those shouting the loudest on each side are hurting their own cause.
The problem with touting one's credentials is that it is an Appeal to Authority, the number-two logical fallacy on many lists. It is a fallacy known since the classical Greeks began compiling lists of formal logical fallacies 2,500 years ago. A degree may make the holder feel all warm and fuzzy, and it may impress the gullible, but it is not any kind of guarantee that because an opinion is held, it must be correct. The sole measure of the validity of a scientific opinion is reality.
Just wanted to make a point on credentials. I'm not a climate scientist nor do I pretend to be, however I do regard myself as being knowledgeable with a fair amount of common sense. What I have found over the years is that credentials does not guarantee a person's ability to use common sense. I look back on some of my university profs, many of who had PhDs. I now realize they were total whack jobs.
The earth's climate is so complex that no amount of theorizing or figuring will ever be able to completely understand all the cycles and feedback loops. Common sense tells me that the chance of error is great when it comes to predicting and modeling. Only time will reveal the truth and my hunch is that many surprises lie ahead.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!