Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
The new Washington
Post Weather website
Jump to CWG's
Latest Full Forecast
Outside now? Radar, temps
and more: Weather Wall
Follow us on Twitter (@capitalweather) and become a fan on Facebook
Posted at 11:00 AM ET, 12/19/2008

Flurry of Fed Science News

By Capital Weather Gang

NOAA chief and presidential science adviser named

* Latest on Weekend Storm: Express & Detailed Forecast *

The Post reports that Oregon State University marine biologist Jane Lubchenco will be the next head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, while Harvard University physicist John Holdren will serve as Obama's top science adviser. Lubchenco was mentioned here at the Capital Weather Gang as a candidate for the NOAA job in Andrew Freedman's blog post: Where Will Obama Lead NOAA?. The NY Times Dot Earth blog has more on both appointments.

Meanwhile, a storm is brewing between the Federal Aviation Administration and the National Weather Service over an FAA proposal to move NWS meteorologists out of its air route traffic control centers.

By Capital Weather Gang  | December 19, 2008; 11:00 AM ET
Categories:  Government  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Forecast: Gloomy Friday; Saturday/Sunday Slop?
Next: PM Update: Patchy Fog as Storm Begins Exit


I thought this was a really great way at looking at the global warming issue.

Posted by: TheMot | December 19, 2008 12:04 PM | Report abuse

TheMot, assuming you believe the propaganda you just posted, it's truly sad how people like you still don't get the basic elements of the discussion. Obviously, it's natural for pro-business blogs like the one you linked to try to take advantage of your ignorance on the issue.

1. Meteorologists are not climate scientists. The time (and even space) scales that they deal with are vastly different, rendering commentary of one of them on the other's field sketchy at best.

2. I would hope any reader of that piece would catch the irony of a Flat Earth type saying, "we shouldn't look at a relative snapshot of 30 years and infer things about all of history" (a true statement, but not what climatologists are doing, so an irrelevant red herring) and then turning around and saying that some very transient weather (a cold week in Las Vegas) is somehow evidence that the whole global warming consensus (generated from decades of analysis and discussion by thousands of highly trained climatologists) is now rendered false. He made a mockery of himself with that little two-step.

3. His whole argument is based on a false premise. I see this crap thrown out there time and again, that somehow we "are basing this on data from just a few years". Do you realize we have data going back hundreds of years (from tree ring data) and thousands of years (from ice core data), and a variety of isotope systems that show up in a whole slew of natural and chemical systems preserved in sediment? It's gravely dishonest to claim that we don't have data more than a few decades old.

If you truly believe what was stated in that piece, I urge you to read some reputable science journals on this. If you realize that it was crap but you're trying to pull a few more gullible people into your brown agenda, then shame on you.

Posted by: B2O2 | December 19, 2008 1:52 PM | Report abuse

Re link to "Business & Media Institute":
If people want to get their science from noted climatologist Matt Drudge, they can go directly there.

Posted by: CapitalClmate | December 19, 2008 2:50 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2012 The Washington Post Company