Weatherman Jym Ganahl is a Kook
- February 9, 2009 5:57 am at 5:57 am #75142
Contact NBC4 and urge them to send Jym Ganahl to some climate change conferences with peer-reviewed climatologists. Let NBC4 know that they have a responsibility to have expert climatologists on-air to debunk Ganahl’s misinformation and the climate change deniers don’t deserve a chance to spread their propaganda:
NBC 4 phone # 263-4444
NBC 4 VP/GM Rick Rogala email: rrogala(ATSIGN)wcmh.com
THE OTHER PAPER, 2/5/09 pg 14
MEDIA MORSELS: Ganahl debunks the global warming
Just when you thought it was safe to assume that everyone had pretty much accepted climate change and moved on, here comes rogue NBC 4 chief meteorologist Jym Ganahl to blow your freaking mind.
“Just wait 5 or 10 years, and it will be very obvious. They’ll have egg on their faces,” Ganahl said this week of global warming advocates.
Read full article here:February 9, 2009 6:02 am at 6:02 am #257371
I think Ganahl spouted off now because he has 30 years at the station and knows that his time is about up. I’m sure he draws a big salary and the station has a new G.M.
I bet his kooky right wing friends are hoping he’ll get fired and they’ll get even more attention from the media. Right-wingers love to play the victim and pretend they don’t have free speech.
Ganahl has every right to his opinions. But NBC4 has a responsiblity to counter his comments which are based on his belief in junk science.February 9, 2009 6:10 am at 6:10 am #257372
Be cautious about meteorologists talking about Global Warming/Catastrophic Climate Change.
From Hell and High Water by Joe Romm (Recommended reading).
“Another reason the media gets the climate extreme-weather link wrong: Most meteorologists, including virtually every TV meteorologist, are not experts on global warming. As one climate scientist explained to me:
“Meteorologits are not required to take a course in climate change … university programs don’t require the course (even if they offer it). So we have been educating generations of meteorologists who know nothing about climate change.”
Asking a meteorologist to explain the cause of recent extreme weather is like asking your family doctor what the chances are for an avian flu pandemic in the next few years or asking a Midwest sheriff about the prospects of nuclear terrorism. The answer might be interesting, but it wouldn’t be one I’d stake my family’s life on.” (p. 225)
Yet, meteorologists are the easiest for journalists to get ahold of and they sound so authoritative.February 9, 2009 6:18 am at 6:18 am #257373
Here’s a Letter to the Editor that I just sent to The Other Paper:
I wonder if NBC4 weatherman Jym Ganahl believes that President Bush and the strategic planners at the Pentagon are part of the so-called climate change hoax? President Bush said we must “confront the serious challenge of global climate change” in his 2007 State of the Union Address.
Of course, the policies he supported made the problem much worse.
And, here’s the headline of a Fortune Magazine article that reports about climate change: “The Pentagon’s Weather Nightmare: The Climate Could Change Radically, and Fast. That Would be the Mother of all National Security Issues.” http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2004/02/09/360120/index.htm
Ganahl clearly has no expertise regarding climate change. He’s lucky to forecast accurately three days out. NBC4 should send him to some climate change conferences with climatologists who have their work peer-reviewed. Hundreds of peer-reviewed studies show that global warming is real and human activity contributes to it. There are zero peer reviewed studies that back up Ganahl which make him a kook.
NBC4 has a responsibility to have real experts on-air to debunk Ganahl’s misinformation. There should be no debate with the climate change deniers until they can back up their opinions with sound science.
State Farm will soon stop insuring property in Florida because they realize that the effects of climate change would cause bankruptcy. Maybe Ganahl and his kooky friends should pool their money to start up an insurance company in Florida to fill the void.
Nationwide Insurance has an informative web page about climate change.
http://www.nationwide.com/catastrophes/global-warming.jsp Them too, Jym?
What’s next, Cabot Rea spouting off that Sadam Hussien really did have nuclear weapons?February 9, 2009 6:55 am at 6:55 am #257374
god bless the new “ignore” feature.
god bless jym ganahl!
and god bless america!
and with that i am done with this thread before it even starts.
“duranceaux park”/”gaza strip”/”bob burney” this thing away!February 9, 2009 1:21 pm at 1:21 pm #257375
Apocolypse now, huh?February 9, 2009 1:22 pm at 1:22 pm #257376
Yes, Ganahl’s opinions certainly make him seem less than erudite.
But DougZ, if I might make a suggestion? People don’t usually seem to enjoy when someone posts a thread, and then makes the first several comments as well. It’s seen as sort of… filibustering. Just my two cents.February 9, 2009 1:53 pm at 1:53 pm #257377
I’m new here, Manatee, and will pay heed to your critique in the future.February 9, 2009 2:14 pm at 2:14 pm #257378
I would recommend boycotting watching the news on TV, but I’m not sure if people still watch it to begin with?
I get my weather updates from my F12 button.February 9, 2009 2:19 pm at 2:19 pm #257379
I agree with ol’ Jim, and ALGORE is laughing all the way to the bank…February 9, 2009 2:58 pm at 2:58 pm #257380
For what it’s worth, TOP’s article says Ganahl made his comments at a meetup of some kind, NOT on the air at NBC 4.
I don’t think the TV station has an obligation to “debunk” a weatherman’s opinion, particularly when said opinion was not given on said TV station’s air.
Cabot could claim up and down that Iraq had WMD, so long as he did it on his own time (and so long as his tinfoil hat didn’t mess up that beautiful head of hair).February 9, 2009 3:04 pm at 3:04 pm #257381
It would be an interesting launching point for a forum featuring Jym as well as OSU paleoclimatologist Lonnie Thompson (dubbed The Ice Hunter by Rolling Stone). Personally, I’d love to watch a debate between the two of them.February 9, 2009 3:09 pm at 3:09 pm #257382
I’m just glad that people can continue to reaffirm that right-wing means “doesn’t believe in global warming” and left-wing means the opposite. Because breaking things into simplistic binaries is really awesome.February 9, 2009 3:14 pm at 3:14 pm #257383
Manatee wrote >>
I’m just glad that people can continue to reaffirm that right-wing means “doesn’t believe in global warming” and left-wing means the opposite. Because breaking things into simplistic binaries is really awesome.
I don’t know, I’m pretty comfortable splitting the debate into science vs. not science.February 9, 2009 3:17 pm at 3:17 pm #257384
K.I.S.S., huh, cookie? whatever is easiest…
The forum ‘General Columbus Discussion’ is closed to new topics and replies.