By adamg on Wed., 2/8/2017 - 11:42 pm
The Globe reports on the quick coming and going of Mish Michaels at "Greater Boston."
Topics:
Free tagging:
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
The Globe reports on the quick coming and going of Mish Michaels at "Greater Boston."
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Interesting story
By cybah
Wed, 02/08/2017 - 11:53pm
Who know a women of science (as a meteorologist) could be so thick about vaccines.
And btw.. Adam, your story has a proceeding " at the end of the link so it doesn't load upon click.
Link fixed
By adamg
Wed, 02/08/2017 - 11:57pm
Sorry about that!
Well, goes the other way, too ...
By SwirlyGrrl
Thu, 02/09/2017 - 12:54am
I've known immunologists who couldn't dress appropriately for the weather if they were given coded tags for their outerwear.
Basic scientific knowledge is useful, but not everything "translates".
oh I know
By cybah
Thu, 02/09/2017 - 1:13am
I used to work with scientists many years ago.. wonderful people who were solving the world's disease problems. But could not use a computer to save their life (and their job depended on it)
Sometimes people are just very smart on one things, brain dead in the others.
I think my point was.. Mish spent her life looking at data models and factual information. Then she got pregnant and "researched" about vaccines. The information that the anti-vaxxers use and its sources is junk science and false. I just would have thought that she would have been able to see thru that.
But then again..... I just look at our country right now and the whole #alternativefacts thing. People choose to believe what they want to believe, even if its totally wrong and isn't backed up by facts.
An interesting view of what science is
By perruptor
Thu, 02/09/2017 - 7:19am
Apparently, she thinks that a scientific consensus ought to include the unfounded opinions of people who are not scientists.
Oh, and she's a climate-change denier, of course.
Is that true?
By anon
Thu, 02/09/2017 - 8:02am
Is she a climate change denier, or are you just idly speculating?
It's in the article
By perruptor
Thu, 02/09/2017 - 11:24am
.
She's a meteorologist who denies climate change?
By erik g
Thu, 02/09/2017 - 1:05pm
That's like believing in rain but not rivers.
It's not that unusual
By Waquiot
Thu, 02/09/2017 - 2:49pm
Davd Epstein is a skeptic, too.
Metereology is about predicting the weather based in patterns and modeling. Climate science looks at weather data that has already occurred to show change and hypothesize future overall trends. They are coming at things from different angles.
Don't ask a climatologist what the weather will be on Monday. Don't ask a meteorologist how the average temperature will rise over the next decade based on current carbon emissions. They are two different things.
Sort of
By SwirlyGrrl
Thu, 02/09/2017 - 3:00pm
It isn't about the past so much as about which future we pick. It is also about the fact that even if we stopped all emissions of carbon in human uses now, we would still be in trouble for the next century or two because we have built up so much climate forcing stuff in the atmosphere already.
The ensemble models incorporate a broad number of models with a range of probabilities and uncertainties, as well as specifying scenarios regarding continued emissions rates and effects of such things as melting permafrost and methane in ice and so on. As things have progressed, they have had to account for more phenomena that weren't around when they started with the first models. However, they are based on the past as a means of projecting the future in terms of how much energy they predict the atmosphere will trap.
The difference between climate and weather is important - climate is long time frame (centuries), weather is short term variation within that. The problem is that those short-term variations continue regardless - but the longer-term patterns of them are shifting and measurably so.
Much better said
By Waquiot
Thu, 02/09/2017 - 4:21pm
I defer.
That's why.
By Smart Arse
Thu, 02/09/2017 - 9:12am
Now we know the real reason she was let-go
insufferable
By Chris Lynch
Thu, 02/09/2017 - 12:12am
Greeter Boston gets more and more painful to watch because of the insufferable Jim Braude. I wonder who does the reference checks at WGBH.
Leave it to WGBH to fire an Indian immigrant who has an opinion
By O-FISH-L
Thu, 02/09/2017 - 12:22am
A well educated immigrant from India, Mish Michaels did very well on her own, then married a well-heeled owner of local car dealerships, so here's hoping that she retains a great lawyer and sues for millions. For those who follow WGBH, it's no surprise that someone with a difference of opinion is quickly escorted out. The Greater Boston program with far-left former Cambridge City Councilor Jim Braude is no longer watchable and the Friday night Beat the Press program has become an echo chamber for liberals, moderates need not apply. The late Friday night repeat is better comedy than any of the actual comedy shows on the networks at that hour.
I'm sure the suits and pantsuits at channel 2 are glad they got rid of Mish before today's blizzard, lest she question Al Gore's prediction that 2016 was the point of no return for
Global Warming,"Climate Change."I don't think I've ever seen
By Chris Lynch
Thu, 02/09/2017 - 12:47am
I don't think I've ever seen a weather segment on Greater Boston.
Yawn
By SwirlyGrrl
Thu, 02/09/2017 - 12:55am
You're into full on madlib territory now, dude.
Any more canned rants with the details changed?
2016 was pretty bad for climate, BTW. You have the scientific acumen of a dead shrew, so it would be impossible to explain it in peabrainlish.
-- 2016 was pretty bad for
By capecoddah
Thu, 02/09/2017 - 7:41am
-- 2016 was pretty bad for climate --
What was the climate supposed to be?
1C cooler
By anon²
Thu, 02/09/2017 - 8:42am
[IMG]http://www.gannett-cdn.com/usatoday/editorial/grap...
-- 1C cooler --
By capecoddah
Thu, 02/09/2017 - 10:33am
-- 1C cooler --
I did not know the climate is supposed to be 1C cooler than it is now. Thank you for offering the information.
Has the climate ever deviated 1C or more before mankind industrialized?
Why are you asking here?
By SwirlyGrrl
Thu, 02/09/2017 - 11:36am
I mean, we can give you a nice xkcd graphic on climate history that even Reason Magazine retweeted, since you seem to have missed the other twenty seven times people have posted it.
There is an enormous amount of solid scientific information on the web. The Union of Concerned Scientists website has multiple levels of resources on climate change (www.ucsusa.org). I was supposed to be at a conference at UMB on the upcoming revisions to the National Climate Assessment today, but sea level rise and storm surge (and the increase in snow and ice storms born of a warming climate in an intemperate area) had other plans.
NCA 2014 is pretty lucid and simple - start here:http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/
From previous "questions", you appear to be intent on not listening or dismissing everything. Let's hope that this condition does not persist until you are ankle deep in the rising tide on the Cape.
Found it.
By capecoddah
Thu, 02/09/2017 - 3:57pm
Found it.
[img]www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/Temperature-...
We are running a few degrees too cold if your 1c deviation from the norm is true.
I do not think you are right. History definitely does not agree with you at all.
Since there are constantly deviations up to a few degrees, this climate is quite normal,.
Of course if a person is inclined to display only a little tiny slice of data, the data may appear askew enough to scare anyone not that smart enough to look at the big picture.
You don't think what
By SwirlyGrrl
Thu, 02/09/2017 - 1:13pm
That a large number of climate scientists and their facts and data outweigh your opinion?
Too bad for you. Nobody is going to pay for your folly when the water comes over.
Your user name is ironic
By erik g
Thu, 02/09/2017 - 1:25pm
considering that its namesake is apt to be underwater in a hundred years' time.
This isn't one of those things that we can all argue about like it's personal preference. The tides, they are a-rising, and anyone who has so much as glanced at an earth science textbook agrees that the only remaining question is "how do we slow it down?"
I am 79 feet above sea level
By capecoddah
Thu, 02/09/2017 - 4:10pm
I am 79 feet above sea level and live about a quarter mile from a strip club. I am good until the year 2944 or until I die... according to the data from the scientists.
When I was a kid, the scientists were all like "ice age! Oh noes!" Then they were all like "Global warming! Arrr" and now they are all like "Weather changing!! Run! Buy carbonite credits! We are all doomed!". Somewhere inbetween the ice age and global warming dread, some people thought the Japanese were going to take over the United States by way of crappy imports. Let me tell you. You three come across as quite polite and grounded compared to all the doomsayers of old. Shine on you crazy kids.
Your chart
By anon²
Fri, 02/10/2017 - 12:55am
Few things.
Humans didn't exist 200,000 years ago. All of human history is inside that cold period of about 50,000 years.
Current CO2 levels have surpassed 400ppm , and have shot up drastically since industrialzation. A time so short, it's not visible on that graph.
You'll be dead and so will I. But your grandkids/legacy won't be fine when the bread baskets in the plains and Cali are dealing with 150F summers.
Ultimately the point us we are altering our habitat outside of the norms that we evolved for, and at a pace never done before. As your graph shows, the earth will keep spinning and the earth will survive. Humanity? That's a different problem.
Like in the above picture
By capecoddah
Fri, 02/10/2017 - 11:21am
Like in the above picture someone posted, you alarmists only show a small sliver of time.
Here is a chart showing a HUGE chunk of time with c02 PPM shown from 180 to 7000
http://deforestation.geologist-1011.net/
C02 at 400 ppm is dangerously low for life on our planet.
During the Jurassic period, life was sploded all over the place and c02 at 1000-3000 ppm
I have lived a long life that included suffering the rants of droolers going on about AIDS, SARS, ozone depletion, Avian flu, Y2k, Soviet thermonuclear annihilation, Aztec prophecies, peak oil in 2008, famine, drought, cats and dogs living together, and Manhattan underwater by 2015.
geologist-1011
By ckd
Fri, 02/10/2017 - 12:36pm
"Timothy Casey is a petroleum geologist"
Hmm. Any possible vested interest in denying global warming there?
He does not deny global
By capecoddah
Fri, 02/10/2017 - 1:27pm
He does not deny global warming.
He is showing us that life on Earth is in danger from too low C02 in the atmosphere.
Pay attention.
Wow
By anon
Fri, 02/10/2017 - 2:04pm
One guy says SO IT MUST BE TRUE. It is simple so I BELIEVE IT and it therefore certainly debunks thousands of scientists spending many years on figuring things out!
You are a classic idiot.
Any scientist will tell you
By capecoddah
Fri, 02/10/2017 - 4:17pm
Any scientist will tell you that if c02 levels fall too low then life on Earth is in danger.
The link I provided simply showed a graph with the complete truth of the c02 levels over the history of life on our planet.
1000 to 3000 ppm during most of the Jurassic period was awesome for life on Earth. Anything less than 200 ppm is not good for life on this planet. We are too close to that mark right now at 400 ppm. We could use some more c02 in the atmosphere.
[img]http://www.sustainableoregon.com/_wp_generated/wpc...
So how has life survived the last 400,000 years?
By ckd
Sat, 02/11/2017 - 5:45am
https://skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=308&p=5#80433
With CO2 levels below your claimed danger line of 200ppm at multiple points, I'm surprised anything remains....
-- How has life survived the
By capecoddah
Sat, 02/11/2017 - 8:11am
-- How has life survived the last 400,000 years? --
1) Dangerously low does not equal planetary life extinction.
2) Sex. Lots of it. Thank a Catholic if you like proliferation of humans.
3) If c02 levels were 800 ppm we would have even MORE life on the planet and less people whining about a non-sustainable population.
I had always suspected
By Sock_Puppet
Sat, 02/11/2017 - 6:34am
That Republicans want to roll society back to the Dark Ages. Now you say you want to roll it back to the Jurassic? Color me surprised.
I do not agree with you that
By capecoddah
Sat, 02/11/2017 - 10:08am
I do not agree with you that ppm of c02 in our atmosphere equals society. c02 makes up such a tiny part of our atmosphere that I wonder why anyone would think that society would be defined by it.
Besides, I said I would like to see 800 ppm of c02, not 1000-3000 which was Jurassic.
800 ppm of c02 in our atmosphere is the future and the future looks green.
Blue
By Sock_Puppet
Sat, 02/11/2017 - 11:10am
The future looks blue at 800 ppm. Or at least your peninsula does.
In the last 100 years c02
By capecoddah
Sat, 02/11/2017 - 12:07pm
In the last 100 years c02 levels have gone up 70 ppm. Ocean levels here on cape cod have risen one inch in the same time.
One inch.
Glacier gonna get me before anything.
Looks like you all are back to global cooling, chumps.
Agree
By Bugs Bunny
Thu, 02/09/2017 - 1:05am
With you on the Beat to Press comment.
Clap Clap Clap
By anon
Thu, 02/09/2017 - 1:13am
CHARLES BUKOWSKI everybody let's thank him again for stopping by to impart on us all those little agenda driven gems. Charles thanks again for your time and may I say reading your newest work is a lukewarm plunge into a depression riddled nightmare and I can't wait to hear more stories about the character that's frustrated with public broadcasting.
Allow me
By tachometer
Thu, 02/09/2017 - 7:44am
FTFY
This will no doubt elude your comprehension, but...
By lbb
Thu, 02/09/2017 - 8:15am
Difference of opinion? Nononono. You get to have your own opinion; you don't get to have your own facts.
Science isn't opinion
By Roslindaler
Thu, 02/09/2017 - 8:26am
Science doesn't involve opinion. It involves factual observation and methodological proof of a conclusion that something is true. That is why it is so powerful. People who aren't scientists can have armchair opinions about whatever they want but it doesn't change the scientifically proven truth of them.
Also, thank you for acknowledging Gore's predictive capabilities as this January has been the warmest ever recorded. I'll make you a deal- I'll stop making fun of climate change deniers (because they are idiots) if you will agree that when we can no longer grow enough food to feed ourselves because of drought and extreme weather then you will forgoe eating and not fight me getting your share. Sound good?
GW vs CC
By waitiseesomething
Thu, 02/09/2017 - 11:21am
O-FISH-L, looks like you're not aware that a) Global Warming and Climate Change are two separate (but related) phenomena, and b) it was deniers, not environmentalists, that sought to change the terminology.
Global Warming refers to the fact that the average global temperature has risen, and continues to rise. Climate Change refers to the effects of that temperature rise. The decision to use one term for both, and for that term to be Global Warming, came from George W. Bush after right-wing propagandist Frank Luntz conducted a study and found that people had a less negative reaction to "Climate Change" because they believe that "climates always change." Both terms were used widely until the Bush administration focused on "Climate Change."
Indian woman?
By ninjers
Thu, 02/09/2017 - 8:17pm
What does the fact that she is well educated, Indian, or an immigrant have to do with any of this? People from all walks of life, in enormous swaths, refute easily verifiable facts. People believe in invisible sky wizards with circular proof logic, think the Earth is 6000 years old, deny that humans are negatively impacting the environment, refuse to believe they evolved from animals. Having an education and being educated are very different things.
Why are you ok with a business refusing someone business based on who they marry or the religious opinions of the business owner, but you are enraged by the fact that someone's opinion, in direct opposition to 90% of the scientific community and the FIELD SHE WOULD BE REPORTING IN, was refused employment. Unfortunately in real life, there are no alternative facts - especially in a field that studies them. I guess you probably think it's weird that the Archdioceses of Boston doesn't employ many atheists. What a bunch of close minded assholes!
I've met Mish. She's as cute as the proverbial
By MC Slim JB
Thu, 02/09/2017 - 1:20am
bug in a rug, very sweet in person, and glamorous, to boot.
But an anti-vaxxer? Sorry, Mish. I expect our real-media reporters to have a basic grasp of science, and that kind of ignorance is potentially lethal to us all, especially our children.
Promulgating anti-science in the age of Trump -- when flunkies for insane, exploitative assholes like Alex Jones get a seat in the White House briefing room -- has to be categorically rejected now more than ever, especially when the science on the subject is so overwhelming.
To people like Fish who talk about science in terms of "differences of opinion", GFY. You're a dangerous ignoramus, too.
How does it follow that
By anon
Thu, 02/09/2017 - 7:46am
How does it follow that rejecting the consensus in one particular area equates to not having a basic grasp of science?
Um, that's not how science works.
By MC Slim JB
Thu, 02/09/2017 - 11:15am
You don't get to "reject the consensus". You do get to contribute peer-reviewed research that may have the effect of confirming or altering the current consensus. The more the research piles up, the harder it is to move the needle, but as any trained scientist will tell you, the consensus is never set in stone. There is always room for new theories, new experimentation and observation, new contributions of quantifiable, verifiable, peer-reviewed results.
Understand that, and you will move in the direction of having a basic grasp of science. As for your garden-variety opinions? You are welcome to them, but they have precisely zero to do with actual science. We're playing football over here, and it has rules: your pogo stick has no place on the field.
The earth is flat was also "settled science" at one time
By O-FISH-L
Thu, 02/09/2017 - 2:24am
.
The earth is flat (Middle Ages), the "Coming Ice Age" (Newsweek, 1970s), "point of no return in ten years" (Al Gore 2006). With the massive increase in autism potentially caused by infant vaccines scoffed at, scientists like Mish Michaels are fired for exploring the issue. The "settled science" of the left is remarkable. Obviously Mish Michaels would still have a job if she toed the WGHB, big-pharma sponsor's line. Sad.
Great quote at end
By Anonanonanon
Thu, 02/09/2017 - 6:41am
And correct, but observations ARE facts in science. There is more science that aging people having children is increasing birth risks. By all means study vaccines, but with FACTS and valid results.
O-Fish-L is the guy who bet on flat earth in the 17th century.
By Anonymous
Thu, 02/09/2017 - 4:41pm
The earliest reliably documented mention of the spherical Earth concept dates from around the 6th century BC when it appeared in ancient Greek philosophy but remained a matter of speculation until the 3rd century BC, when Hellenistic astronomy established the spherical shape of the Earth as a physical given.
3rd Century BC science said Earth was a sphere.
Demonstration that the Earth is a sphere was accomplished by Ferdinand Magellan and Juan Sebastián Elcano's circumnavigation in the 16th century, 1519−1522.
O-Fish-L is the guy who bet on flat earth in the 17th century.
The Earth Was NEVER Flat
By anon
Thu, 02/09/2017 - 6:43am
Eratosthenes measured the Earth's circumference over 2200 years ago to within 10% of it's actual size.
Columbus, like you, embraced alternative facts. He refused to accept Eratosthenes calculation and chose to believe against all evidence that the Earth was much smaller. If it wasn't for the completely unexpected presence of an entire continent, he would have starved to death in the middle of the ocean.
Perhaps you too should take a long drive into the middle of nowhere without your GPS.
Pages
Add comment