Jan. 12, 2011: Winter wonderland

Climate commented on Greater Boston on 01.13.11
Mr. Schwoeglers statements that "global warming really has not been in evidence for the past eight or nine years" is quite strange, given that on this same day the Goddard Institute released analysis indicating that 2010 was tied for the warmest year on record. Several institutions around the world seem to have independently confirmed warming trends. http//www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20110112/ http//www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20110113/

Judith commented on Greater Boston on 01.13.11
I was very surprised and disappointed that Emily even introduced the concept of climate change into a piece on one big snow storm and even more surprised that she let Mr. Schwoegler, an admitted sceptic, blather on as long as he did with no data to back up his opinion. I agree with all the comments already posted. The only thing that redeemed the show was Jared Bowens excellent piece on Tommy Tune.

dennis commented on Greater Boston on 01.13.11
Ive been out of state for more than ten years, and Ive enjoyed watching GB on and off since Ive returned. I have a single complaint that Ill now share as it was highlighted in last nights segment with Bruce Schwoegler. Emily, you generally have great guests, which is the primary reason for watching an "interview" type show. IMO, you need to "let go" a bit more, and stop injecting your comments/attitude/belief midstream, as you often do, cutting off your guests. I came to hear them, not you. I dont mind your input, but I want theirs primarily. Now, with Bruce last night. When I saw him, again after me being away for more than ten years, I thought, "Gee, wonder why hes disappeared from Boston TV". Well, now we all know. It wasnt just the fact that hes an unreconstructed climate denier thats bad enough in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, but hes a rabid climate denier offers no fact, just his uninformed opinion. But, if ever there was a time for you to "butt in" his interview was it. Yet, you remained curiously quiet. Did you plan on his diatribe? Ive seen you cut folks off at the knee by dismissing their rants as "off topic" why not him?

Diane commented on Greater Boston on 01.12.11
Carlos has made several of the points I was going to make regarding Schwoeglers surprise diatribe on climate change. Schwoeglers plea for better science and then ridiculing it is contradictory, at best. Schwoegler did not cannot? cite any support for his own point of view and could not even cite a study correctly what is with the feathers comment?? At the least, it would be great to have Greater Boston recap this issue by analyzing why it is so common for TV and radio meteorologists to deny anthropogenic climate change, whereas it is very hard to find a CLIMATOLOGIST that does. Subject is getting a lot of research these days. I would otherwise welcome any climate skeptic that could talk to all the data sans the eye rolling. The public deserves it.

Carlos commented on Greater Boston on 01.12.11
My apologies for the double post...I had only wanted to add that the majority of the punctuation in my comment did not post. Not sure why?

Carlos commented on Greater Boston on 01.12.11
Ill state initially that I have a graduate degree in atmospheric science. The segment with Bruce Schwoegler took a disconcerting spin off topic the snow storm into a onesided diatribe which host Emily Rooney was at a loss to reign in. Bruce scolded the media for not understanding science but then scolded the current flock of meteorologist for "too much book learning" and not working off their gut feelings. Huh? How hypocritical. A simple straight forward segment became, in the end, mired with a murky argument against the science of climate change. No direct evidence against climate change was ever given only grumpy, snide swipes. The initial question whether the current snow storm is evidence for "global warming" a term that is rarely used in the scientific literature has some legitimacy but was ill posed. To be perfectly clear, climate is the statistics of weather. Climate is informed by weather but a solitary weather event be it a hot day, snow storm or a hurricane cannot be explained by climate. One should NOT confuse the two fields. A single weather event should NEVER be used as an argument for or against climate change. Ms. Rooney should have caught on quickly that Mr. Schwoegler response was deeply biased he even admits to being a skeptic/denier that climate change had any anthropogenic i.e. manmade causation. Ultimately, its segments like these in which an expert who glibly dismisses a whole field of science, that ultimately undermines a publics confidence in scientific discourse.

Carlos commented on Greater Boston on 01.12.11
Ill state initially that I have a graduate degree in atmospheric science. The segment with Bruce Schwoegler took a disconcerting spin off topic the snow storm into a onesided diatribe which host Emily Rooney was at a loss to reign in. Bruce scolded the media for not understanding science but then scolded the current flock of meteorologist for "too much book learning" and not working off their gut feelings. Huh? How hypocritical. A simple straight forward segment became, in the end, mired with a murky argument against the science of climate change. No direct evidence against climate change was ever given only grumpy, snide swipes. The initial question whether the current snow storm is evidence for "global warming" a term that is rarely used in the scientific literature has some legitimacy but was ill posed. To be perfectly clear, climate is the statistics of weather. Climate is informed by weather but a solitary weather event be it a hot day, snow storm or a hurricane cannot be explained by climate. One should NOT confuse the two fields. A single weather event should NEVER be used as an argument for or against climate change. Ms. Rooney should have caught on quickly that Mr. Schwoegler response was deeply biased he even admits to being a skeptic/denier that climate change had any anthropogenic i.e. manmade causation. Ultimately, its segments like these in which an expert who glibly dismisses a whole field of science, that ultimately undermines a publics confidence in scientific discourse.