Our City Online

Messageboard - General Columbus Discussion

Weatherman Jym Ganahl is a Kook

Home Forums General Columbus Discussion Weatherman Jym Ganahl is a Kook

This topic contains 147 replies, has 0 voices, and was last updated by  Doug Z 5 years, 8 months ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 46 through 60 (of 148 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #257415
    Manatee
    Manatee
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    my medium is dying wrote >>
    I …
    1.) DVR local news
    2.) wrote this story
    3.) love Jym Ganahl
    4.) don’t think he should be fired for views on global warming, creationism or … i dunno … Columbus Alive’s Bands to Watch.
    where have all the global warming moderates gone?

    Right here, sister. I don’t think Jym should be fired. I don’t think a lot of people on this board are suggesting such a thing.

    This is just a contentious issue, and Jym’s POV incites discussion.

    #257416

    catnfiddle
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    Manatee wrote >>

    my medium is dying wrote >>
    I …
    1.) DVR local news
    2.) wrote this story
    3.) love Jym Ganahl
    4.) don’t think he should be fired for views on global warming, creationism or … i dunno … Columbus Alive’s Bands to Watch.
    where have all the global warming moderates gone?

    Right here, sister. I don’t think Jym should be fired. I don’t think a lot of people on this board are suggesting such a thing.
    This is just a contentious issue, and Jym’s POV incites discussion.

    Well said, Manatee.

    #257417

    Rockmastermike
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    SLyleCoy wrote >>
    Sure there’s the whole “science vs not science” but has anyone besides al gore actually ever seen his “science”/”math” that he used to figure out all this global warming huztpah? Nope. And no one will for quite some time.

    Oh please. A lot of us have seen the science.

    I have taken graduate level classes in climatology taught by active climate researchers including a member of the National Academy of Science. I have attended many lectures/seminars/presentations by climate scientists. And i have reviewed studies/papers/’unpublished research’ by the climatologists.

    The evidence is both compelling and voluminous that anthropogenic climate forcing based on carbon dioxide concentration is very real.

    The evidence that ALL climate forcing is due to solar fluctuations has not stood up to peer review. In fact, in one paper I reviewed last year (the one I am fairly sure Jym Ganahl has been reading about sunspots) the author, David Archibald, had clearly hand-picked his data points to reflect a trend that was the reverse of the trend in the total data. Sad. (“Archibald, D.C. (2006) Solar cycles 24 and 25 and predicted climate response?” here is a well researched review of the article with corrected data: http://n3xus6.blogspot.com/2007/02/dd.html )

    So don’t go saying that “Al Gore” is just makin’ this stuff up. He got it from a volume of work from many hundreds of publications by many hundreds of scientists, who mostly don’t give a rat’s ass about Al Gore.
    ( such as this article: “Thompson, L.G., E. Mosley-Thompson, H. Brecher, M.Davis, B. Leon, D. Les, P.-N. Lin, T. Mashiotta, K. Mountain. 2006. Abrupt Tropical Climate Change: Past and Present. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 103(28), 10536-10543.”, which is an excellent place to start http://bprc.osu.edu/Icecore/thompson_pnas_2006.pdf)

    So, you guys just go ahead and pretend there’s “no science” to back up anthropogenic climate forcing if it makes you feel better, but realize saying it don’t make it so.

    If anyone would like to discuss this with some actual climate scientists (you know, the people who actually do the work) let me know and I’ll put you in touch.

    #257418

    Doug Z
    Member
    Login to Send PM

    Jym Ganahl is on his way out regardless of this debate. He has put in over 30 years at WCMH and makes a fat salary. WCMH has a new General Manager and a job of new GM’s at TV stations is to bring in new talent.

    #257419
    Cookie
    Cookie
    Member
    Login to Send PM

    Doug Z wrote >>
    Jym Ganahl is on his way out regardless of this debate. He has put in over 30 years at WCMH and makes a fat salary. WCMH has a new General Manager and a job of new GM’s at TV stations is to bring in new talent.

    So … you want to create the false impression that he’s losing his job over this issue?

    #257420

    Rockmastermike
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    Doug Z wrote >>
    Jym Ganahl is on his way out regardless of this debate. He has put in over 30 years at WCMH and makes a fat salary. WCMH has a new General Manager and a job of new GM’s at TV stations is to bring in new talent.

    Too bad if that’s true. I like Jym. he’s a good meteorologist and he has decades of cogent observations that make him very good at second-guessing the standard computer models for short term forecasting.

    #257421

    Doug Z
    Member
    Login to Send PM

    graymare wrote:

    “However, if over the same time period, Democrats’ faith in global warming dropped 10 percentage points as well (say, from 90 to 80), that would put the GOP shift in perspective. (It would, of course, also put it in perspective if the Democrats’ shift was in the other direction.)”

    Doug Z writes:

    No, that would be an indictment on the media. Again, the debate is over within the scientific community and cognoscente.

    Politicians act when there is political will. That’s why the court of public opinion matters.

    #257422

    Doug Z
    Member
    Login to Send PM

    Cookie:

    “So … you want to create the false impression that he’s losing his job over this issue?”

    No, the opposite. I think Ganahl’s right-wing friends he spouted off with on the You Tube video are going to claim that Ganahl lost his job for expressing his opinion. Again, Conservatives love to play the victim and pretend they have no free speech. Even though Columbus has 6 conservative talk radio stations and zero liberal ones.

    The issue is that most people think of Ganahl as a climatology expert even though he’s absolutely not.

    He has every right to his opinion.

    Yeah, Ganahl’s a nice and charming guy. He doesn’t act like Ted Baxter but has many things in common.

    #257423
    gramarye
    gramarye
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    Doug Z wrote >>
    graymare wrote:
    “However, if over the same time period, Democrats’ faith in global warming dropped 10 percentage points as well (say, from 90 to 80), that would put the GOP shift in perspective. (It would, of course, also put it in perspective if the Democrats’ shift was in the other direction.)”
    Doug Z writes:
    No, that would be an indictment on the media. Again, the debate is over within the scientific community and cognoscente.

    “The debate is over” is most frequently invoked by those who know very well that it isn’t. In fact, it’s an almost self-defeating turn of phrase. It’s also particularly inapt in this case because “the debate” is actually an amalgam of many smaller (albeit not small) debates.

    (1) Is it happening?
    (2) How bad will it be if it isn’t stopped?
    (3) Can it be stopped?
    (4) How much will it cost to stop it?
    (5) Who individually should bear that cost, if we as a society decide to pay it?

    Also, not only is the debate not over, but I don’t even believe you want it to be–or you wouldn’t have been citing E Magazine (as distinguished from E! Magazine) and The Nation. I don’t cite National Review here when I’m looking for general nods of agreement.

    P.S. I don’t generally focus on people’s spellings, but there are certain SAT-level words that, if you’re going to use, you have to spell correctly. Cognoscenti is one of them. Otherwise, you’re just providing food for the ferrovores among us–those who live on irony. :P

    #257424

    Doug Z
    Member
    Login to Send PM

    Graymayre,

    I used the plural form of cognosscenti. So sue me.

    Obama campaigned on switching to a green collar economy. And, guess what? He won in a landslide.

    You seem to be ignorant to the fact that switching to solar and wind power and electric cars is just what our economy needs. We’d be investing in sustainable technology rather than fighting wars to get our oil under their sand.

    Installing wind turbines and solar panels would put millions of people to work in good paying jobs. Just what the economy needs.

    What are the costs of sticking to the status quo and being dependent on foriegn oil and buring dirty coal?

    #257425
    Cookie
    Cookie
    Member
    Login to Send PM

    Doug Z wrote >>
    The issue is that most people think of Ganahl as a climatology expert even though he’s absolutely not.
    He has every right to his opinion.

    I don’t think anybody thinks of the local weatherman as a climatology expert, let alone “most people.” And if he has every right to his opinion, why do you think his employer is responsible for rebutting it on the air?

    #257426
    Nitsud Regnifloh
    Nitsud Regnifloh
    Member
    Login to Send PM

    Doug Z wrote >>

    Installing wind turbines and solar panels would put millions of people to work in good paying jobs. Just what the economy needs.

    so would reorganizing our electricity grids across the nation. they are so dated and unorganized that a more efficient layout would not only create jobs, but supply power more efficiently and effectively.

    #257427

    Doug Z
    Member
    Login to Send PM

    Cookie wrote:

    “I don’t think anybody thinks of the local weatherman as a climatology expert, let alone “most people.” And if he has every right to his opinion, why do you think his employer is responsible for rebutting it on the air?”

    Most of the public aren’t sophisticated to know the difference between meteorology and climatology altho there’s a world of diffence.

    Ganahl is using his position as a weatherman to sew misinformation. NBC4 advertises him as an expert about weather. NBC4 broadcasts over the public airwaves. They have some obligations to broadcast for the public good.

    Some of the ignorance and ambivalence posted here about global warming displays just why WCMH as an obligation to counter Ganahl.

    The earth isn’t going away for another 5 billion years when the sun is expected to die out. Global warming is about saving humanity and God’s other living creation.

    #257428
    Cookie
    Cookie
    Member
    Login to Send PM

    Doug Z wrote >>
    Some of the ignorance and ambivalence posted here about global warming displays just why WCMH as an obligation to counter Ganahl.

    Look, I think Jym Ganahl is wrong, but I don’t see any reason that his employer is obligated to address it.

    #257429
    gramarye
    gramarye
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    Doug Z wrote >>
    Graymayre,

    You seem to be ignorant to the fact that switching to solar and wind power and electric cars is just what our economy needs.

    By which you mean I refuse to treat your opinion of the matter as fact.

    Everyone and their brother has a prescription for “just what our economy needs.”

    We’d be investing in sustainable technology rather than fighting wars to get our oil under their sand.

    First, there’s no reason we can’t do both. :)

    Second, investing in sustainable technology is a realistic proposal and I don’t oppose it, because my support for such investments is completely unrelated to the question of whether global warming is real, anthropogenic, and/or severe. Such technology would both diversify and localize our power portfolio, buffering our economy and, yes, our military against exogenous supply shocks due to politics or natural disasters elsewhere on our planet.

    Installing wind turbines and solar panels would put millions of people to work in good paying jobs. Just what the economy needs. What are the costs of sticking to the status quo and being dependent on foriegn oil and buring dirty coal?

    The costs of the status quo are exposure to hostile political developments in the Middle East and Latin America, as well as the economic vulnerability any nondiversified portfolio faces. There are also environmental hazards associated with the burning of fossil fuels of much greater empirical provenance than carbon dioxide (which, at least, is non-toxic, unlike many byproducts of getting energy from coal or petroleum products). I do not deny these.

    However, you seem to be under the impression that the costs of your green revolution would be zero–all benefit, no cost. That is simply not a credible or convincing perspective, and its prevalence among the environmentalist lobby is one of the mean reasons I remain such a skeptic. Depending on what specific policies you’re proposing (carbon taxes, cap-and-trade schemes, no nuclear plants, etc.), the costs could include dramatic job losses in energy, agriculture, and manufacturing. You’re also almost certainly talking about higher taxes, higher deficits, and higher regulatory costs–meaning higher barriers to entry into industries in which the innovations of new players could be critical.

Viewing 15 posts - 46 through 60 (of 148 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Lost your password?