In this week’s episode, Glenn Hurricane Schwartz explores the difference between verifiable, concrete facts and one’s own “truth”.

Truth vs. Facts

Glenn Hurricane Schwartz

Truth vs. Facts

When it comes to the topic of climate, folks can be put into 1 of 4 categories: Acceptors, Deniers, Lukewarmers & Doomers. Our job is not to convince deniers that climate change is real, is happening and I verifiable. That ship has sailed. Our job is to talk to everyone else and use common sense messaging to help them understand WHAT’S happening and how we as a society can work together to pressure the governments of the world to make meaningful change.

Hurricane Schwartz is in with the latest “Eye on Climate” segment!

Media censorship? Yes! For Glenn’s ENTIRE career, he couldn’t say what he wanted to say. His TV stations wouldn’t allow him to dive into climate science. But now? There are no cuffs and no one can tell him what he can and can not say… and I’m here for it. Check out Hurricane Glenn Schwartz’s latest Eye on Climate!

The warming of the climate is ACCELERATING. The data is clear. One of the sources that confirms this was ORIGINALLY created and FUNDED to DISPROVE climate change… but they COULDN’T. Glenn “Hurricane” Schwartz explains in this week’s Eye on Climate! 

Meteorologist Glenn “Hurricane” Schwartz is back with this week’s Eye on Climate! Remember the stat “97% of scientists agree that the climate is changing”? Well, throw that stat out! It’s now 99.9%. It’s universally accepted that climate change is real and has consequences for people living on this planet. Messaging matters. Common sense education on the subject, matters. Let’s dive into it all, here!

Myths about Climate Change

Veteran Meteorologist Glenn “Hurricane” Schwartz dives into facts about our changing climate in the first episode of our new on-going weekly series.

Daniel Patrick Moynihan said it simply-and the best:

This definition is the key to my philosophy on climate (and science in general). Here are a couple of examples I use to define the difference between facts and “truth”

FACT: “I am less than 6 feet tall”. This can be measured. It can be verified through measurement by others. No person with any objectivity can dispute it.
TRUTH: “I am short”. Yes, most people would consider 5’6 “short”. But maybe Tom Cruise wouldn’t (he’s supposedly 5’7″). Danny DeVito might even consider me “tall” (listed as 4’10”). “I am short” is MY truth. Others might reasonably think differently.
Here’s another example: I have just been driving and pulled over by police.
Policeman: “You were speeding. You were doing 28 mph in a 25-mph zone”
Me: “That’s not speeding. Are you going to give me a ticket when everyone goes above 25?”
The policeman stated a FACT. But my TRUTH was that I wasn’t speeding.

CLIMATE FACTS VS. “TRUTH”
First, you may notice I put quotes around TRUTH but not around FACTS. I asked Google AI and got what I think are good answers:
“The practice of putting quotation marks around “truth” while leaving facts unquoted is rooted in a philosophical distinction between the two concepts.
Nature A broader, often more subjective concept. A truth can be a belief, a personal interpretation, or a value system, such as “Honesty is the best policy”. A specific, verifiable piece of information or an objective state of affairs that can be proven.
Objectivity Can be influenced by personal experiences and beliefs. Independent of personal perspective or opinion. For example, the fact that “the Earth orbits the Sun” is scientifically verifiable regardless of individual belief.
Certainty Can be subject to interpretation and may be contested or change over time as perspectives evolve. Accepted as stable until new evidence proves them wrong. Scientific facts are provisionally accepted but can be revised with better information.
Usage Because of its subjective nature, it is sometimes used to describe a version of reality unique to a person or group. Placing it in quotes can signify doubt or distance from that claim. As a singular, verifiable piece of data, it stands on its own. Using the word “fact” asserts that the statement is objective and provable.”

CLIMATE FACTS
Air temperatures are measurable. So is precipitation. The instruments aren’t perfect, but the science world has accepted them as accurate for hundreds of years. Instruments can also accurately measure water temperatures. Satellites can measure temperatures, ice extent and thickness, and even moisture in the atmosphere. And the more measurements there are, the greater the confidence that they are accurate. And are FACTS.
So, here are examples of climate FACTS in map and graphic forms:

(We can surely assume accurate temperatures have been taken since 1951. If you have any doubts, look into Berkeley Earth-their mission was to find biases in instrument readings, but confirmed them instead)
Check out the Wikipedia link to Berkeley:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Earth
One quote from the site: “The Berkeley Earth study addressed scientific concerns raised by skeptics including urban heat island effect, poor station quality, and the risk of data selection bias.”
If you don’t accept even the trend or overall message of these graphics, you are a climate denier. Period.
Science uses measurements, but they’re not perfect. Data doesn’t have to be perfect to be a FACT.

THE TEMPERATURE “TRUTH”
So, any objective view can see the fact of the global temperature rise, especially since around 1970. The real question is “WHY HAS THIS HAPPENED”? The overwhelming climate scientist’s “truth” is that this warming was caused by human activities (the release of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide). Your “truth” may be different. Many of us refer to those other “truths” as MYTHS. I’ll be talking about many of those myths in the future.

Just how much influence is in your weather and climate reporting on your local televison news?

More and more local Television weather casters are starting to put weather events in climate context, but according to legendary Philadelphia TV Meteorologist Glenn “Hurricane” Schwartz, nervous station managers are holding back change.

Take a look behind the scenes with Scrub Daddy as they give Glenn “Hurricane” Schwartz a tour of their energy friendly facility.

Who knew those smiley sponges were a part of the RENEWABLE REVOLUTION? Learn about Aaron’s passion for sustainable business and how Scrub Daddy helps fight the climate crisis.

IS IT ONE? IS IT BOTH? IS IT NEITHER? WHERE DID THE TERMS COME FROM?

Global warming is a PART of climate change. There are other changes that occur with climate aside from warming land and oceans. They are both correct terms. But one sounds scarier than the other. And that’s why there is so much confusion and controversy about the use of those terms.

Frank Luntz, a controversial figure is known mostly as a Republican pollster and consultant for decades. He is the person most tied to the “change” of the increasingly accepted term “global warming” into the term he recommended – “climate change” back in 2002. He made the recommendation to President George W. Bush and it is now used widely in discussions of climate. His research showed that “climate change is less threatening than global warming.” As more evidence of his brilliant use of different terms for political issues, he is also credited for suggesting changing:

“Inheritance tax” to “death tax”

“Health care reform” to “government takeover of health care”

….and others.

BUT HE DIDN’T INVENT THE TERM – IT GOES WAAAAY BACK….

Luntz wasn’t the first to use the term “climate change,” but he did help popularize it.

The term apparently goes back to at least 1961, when the top climate scientist for the U.S., J. Murray Mitchell used BOTH “climate change” and “global warming” in a paper. His first use of the term “climate change” may even go back to 1953 (see the article on the highly respected website “Skeptical Science”):

https://skepticalscience.com/origin_of_global_warming.html

The climate “denialsphere” argument that “THEY” (meaning climate “alarmists”) changed the term because THEY realized “global warming” was too extreme is simply wrong. If anyone “changed it,” it was Luntz and the people he influenced.

As the word cloud above shows, climate change is about much more than rising temperatures. Drought, glaciers, permafrost, snowpack, sea-level rise, and floods are all included. It certainly looks like “climate change” is the more appropriate term when discussing the affects of increasing greenhouse gases. But it as Luntz suggested, it doesn’t communicate the climate danger levels that are approaching (or already here). So, I like to use the term “climate crisis,” even though it was popularized by Al Gore more than 20 years ago. He is a polarizing figure in climate discussions (the subject of a future blog, no doubt), but it’s the most appropriate term to use. Some scientists are even going further, calling it a “climate emergency.” “Emergency” may indeed be the most appropriate term.

EVEN LUNTZ CHANGED HIS TUNE!

Luntz’s suggestion on climate wording has been recently disputed – by HIM! In 2019 he testified before a Senate climate panel. “I was wrong in 2001…..people stop using something I wrote 18 years ago, because it’s not accurate today.”

His shift was reported to be due to the 2017 California wildfires that threatened his house. Now he believes relating such personal stories will convince more people of the climate dangers than using complex and misunderstood scientific statements.

But how many deniers know the whole, real story?