- events
- /
- member info
- /
- support
- /
- shop
- /
- about us
- Become a Member
- Join Now
- Sustaining Members
- Member Benefits
- Match Your Contribution
- FAQ
- Existing Members
- Member Discounts
- Member Benefits
- Change of Address
- Tax Information
- Leadership Circle
- Sustaining Members
- Planned Giving
- Match Your Contribution
- Donate Stock
- Donate a Vehicle
- Become an Advocate
- Volunteer
- Become a Sponsor
- Radio Heartland
- Wonderground Radio
- Company Information
- Stations
- Public Insight Journalism
- Contact Info
- Press Room
- MPR People
- Career Opportunities
- Partners
- Educational Sponsors
- MPR Advocates Network
- Tapes & Transcripts
- Tower Rental
The science behind the showbiz
Posted at 7:29 AM on May 21, 2008
by Bob Collins
(47 Comments)
Filed under: Media
Why do we care so much about what TV weatherpeople think about climate change/global warming? If there's a scandal to be had, perhaps, it might be that with all the electron-sucking, radar spitting, neutron enhancing gear, determining what the weather is going to be 24 hours from now is a giant crapshoot that the weatherpeople quite often get wrong. We accept the consistency of inaccuracy and we love them anyway. But when it comes to global warming, all bets are off.
Next to the Chanhassen Dinner Theater (btw, interesting story today on Republicans preventing it from moving to the expanded Mall of America, which appears to run counter to the "too much regulation on business" mantra.), there's no more popular showbiz in these parts than the 5 minutes of TV weather.
On last night's news -- thrown in somewhere among the segments on why people are late and how to save for your kids' college -- WCCO meteorologist Mike Fairbourne -- the last meteorologist standing after Paul Douglas got canned -- defended himself against criticism spawned by a Star Tribune article that outed him as one of 31,000 "scientists" claiming the human impact on global warming is overblown.
"I'm amazed people won't allow me an opinion," Fairbourne said. "'I'm not debating global warming."
Huh?
The WCCO weather offices must've been a fun place to work back when Douglas and Fairbourne were both in it, because Douglas toes the American Meteorological Society line on global warming: it's happening, it's real, and the enemy is us. Douglas, in his Star Tribune articles, would also occasionally relay how much fun he has on his snowmobiles and ATVs, two contributors -- one might argue -- to an increase in carbon emissions.
On her blog, WCCO reporter Esme Murphy posts an e-mail on the subject from Douglas:
My attitude: all of us are certainly entitled to our opinions, but I tend to defer to the professional climate scientists on matters of the atmosphere extending beyond 15 days or so. There are thousands of (peer-reviewed) climate scientists all saying pretty much the same thing, man is having an impact. How big? Don't pretend to know, but to just cover your eyes, put your hands over your ears, and make believe that a 38% spike in greenhouse gases (from man) won't have any impact at all on the atmosphere seems like a leap of faith...and believability."
Smack.
Media watcher Brian Lambert posits that this whole ruckus is more about politics than science:
The fundamental issue in this "debate" is, of course, politics, not science. Fringe groups such as the OISM, to which Mike Fairbourne lent his name, are invariably politically conservative--deeply conservative --and attack "consensus science" of actual experts, as opposed to TV weathermen, bio-chemists, and whatever from a partisan political perspective much more than one based in science.
... but Lambert gives the TV weather folks who have made their opinions known, credit for doing so. He doesn't explain, however, why a weatherperson's opinion matters so. They're not climatologists.
As for tomorrow's weather? Your guess is as good as theirs.
Comments (47)
One wonders what "fringe-groups" the leftwing attack dog Brian Lampert has lent his name too?
As for the notion that meteorologists are not climatologists and therefore have nothing to say about climate change - let us be clear about something. The majority of panel members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are not climate scientists either and know much less about the subject than meteorologists - but somehow their "consensus" is important.
I didn't say that meteorologists shouldn't have anything to say about climate change. I'm suggesting that their opinion really isn't any more informed than anyone else's. They're not researchers on climate change. Their job and their expertise is trying to figure out the weather 24 hours from now.
Debating climate change is like debating the existence of God, imho. You take your best guess. Proof will come later.
But why get worked up about what a guy who's paid to give the forecast thinks about anything other than the forecast?
If that's his opinion... then that's his opinion.
In the end,it isn't going to matter. If man is responsible for a warming climate, then that's that. We're not the type of species to sacrifice. If nature is the cause of it, then there's nothing really we can do about it.
Maybe it's just the natural order of things that planets come and planets go.
Hold up there Bob.
A meteorologist knows a heck of a lot more about climate than most other professions. In fact, it could be argued that your local meteorologist may know more about climate than most climatologists.
For instance, who knows more about jet stream, El Nino, or La Nina behavior? Pick one, a paleo-climatologist specializing in Greenland ice-core sampling, pine-spor climate reconstructionist or your local meteorologist?
If we are building a model to predict climate change who is better to plug in the variables on the jet stream, or El Nino or La Nina?
We know now some of the models the IPCC used to predict climate change have been falsified (proven incorrect) others teeter on the brink.
Maybe we should start talking to our local meteorologists rather than to people who focus on 200,000 year old pine spores.
A commenter HERE may know more about the jet stream than most other professions.
Maybe all we should expect of our local meteorologists is an accurate forecast for tomorrow.
There's no shortage of people -- informed and uninformed -- to tell me what to think. Why is a weatherman any different. Why should I care?
Why is a weatherman any different. Why should I care?You are drawing a false line between "climatologists" and "meteorologists" as if they were not the same thing. A climatologist is a meteorologist with a specialty, and the specialty may be paleo-pine-spors.
So who is more reliable predictor of average temperature in twenty years, a pine-spor specialist or a meteorologist called a "weatherman"?
The climate debate is about prediction and the accuracy of forecasts and atmospheric modeling. Who knows more about that than a meteorologist?
I think if hollywood did a movie about Mike Fairbourne Gene Hackman should play his part
I will give you a classic example of why we should listen to weather meteorologists rather than to climate meteorologists.
In the last year we have been peppered with articles about the arctic ice pack (and those poor polar bears) and the collapse of the Wilkins Ice Shelf in Antarctica.
Both were presented as the consequences of Global Warming but in reality neither had anything to do with climate change.
The arctic ice pack oscillations are a well understood phenomemna driven by the chaotic changes in wind and current. The low point for the arctic ice pack was 1922, and the winter of 2007/2008 has restored the ice to prior levels.
In Antarctica, the Wilkins ice shelf lost a whopping 3% of its volume (as is perfectly natural) and its neighboring ice-shelf is showing no sign of deterioration.
NEWCUTS reported at the time of the Wilkins collapse that the termperature in the Antarctic Peninsula had risen over the last decade. We were led to believe this is because of "Global Warming".
It is not, it is attributable again to oscillations in ocean current.....much like what happened in the Arctic.
So let's get down to the crust of the bisquit. Wouldn't we have all been better off if journalists consulted their local "weatherman" before repeating false warnings about things like pack ice and collapsing ice shelves?
Maybe one just might say......."Naw, that stuff has been happening for years."
And yeah, local meteorologists do know a thing or two about what is going on in the Arctic.
Debating climate change is like debating the existence of God, imho. You take your best guess. Proof will come later.
Except that we can scientifically prove one, and all but have faith in the other. (That's not to say we have "proved" the human role in global climate change yet, but I tend to err on the side of the vast majority of people who have degrees on the subject that hypothesize that this is the case.) That comparison is a bit outlandish.
In the end,it isn't going to matter. If man is responsible for a warming climate, then that's that. We're not the type of species to sacrifice. If nature is the cause of it, then there's nothing really we can do about it.
Maybe it's just the natural order of things that planets come and planets go.
Now there's some fatalist thinking! Not "the type of species to sacrifice?" Nevermind the millions of people who have sacrificed their lives for others in humanitarian efforts. To think that humans are incapable of helping one another in exchange for their own well-being is proved wrong every single day.
And I especially liked this cheap shot:
Douglas, in his Star Tribune articles, would also occasionally relay how much fun he has on his snowmobiles and ATVs, two contributors -- one might argue -- to an increase in carbon emissions.
As if everyone who accepts global climate change should live off the land. I hear that climatologists use electricity to power their research equipment too.
//Who knows more about that than a meteorologist?
You've walked into the doorjam of my point. My wife's aging hip is as good a predictor of the weather as most of the weatherpeople on TV. Does that make her an expert on climate change?
The fact that Paul Douglas and Mike Fairbourne disagree so much over the same point is, in itself, proof enough for me that there's no great insight to be found on the subject of climate change in terms of facts that I can't get in a thousand different places.
Just give me the forecast for tomorrow, try to get it right, and when you do, maybe THEN I'll give 2 cents about your prediction for the next decade.
I guess I don't see why conservatives don't like the idea of global warming. What does it have to do with being a liberal or a conservative? Most people believe other things that are "scientific consensus" like “Smoking is bad for us.” What is the difference?
People that study “paleo-pine-spors” and Greenland ice-cores talk to people that study the jet stream and El Niño and La Niña. If they mostly agree, that is what is meant by “consensus.” Local Meterolologists don’t specialize in any of those things. They may know more about whether than I do, but the Climatologists know more than the Local Meteorologists do.
//I tend to err on the side of the vast majority of people who have degrees on the subject that hypothesize that this is the case.
And it's the same with the question of God, especially if you subscribe to the Reggie Jackson School of Theology.
//Now there's some fatalist thinking! Not "the type of species to sacrifice?" Nevermind the millions of people who have sacrificed their lives for others in humanitarian efforts.
No sale with me although YMMV. I see an energy crisis and people driving past me at 70 while complaining about the price of gasoline. I see a war in which people who aren't in the military aren't expected to sacrifice anything. Maybe at one time we were a country that believed in sacrifice, but not any more.
//As if everyone who accepts global climate change should live off the land
The one thing I never hear from the moralists on climate change is what they expect ME to do about it. What do THEY intend to do about it. I constantly hear what they expect OTHERS to do about it. There's a pretty big bunch of real estate between living off the land and the wasteful squandering of a resource that you profess to want to protect.
Surrounding just about any political debate is a fair amount of hypocrisy on both sides. If one is not interested in -- as I said -- in leading by example, one should not assume any moral authority on a subject.
GregS writes
"And yeah, local meteorologists do know a thing or two about what is going on in the Arctic."
Yet local meterologists don't agree on whether humans cause global warming.
How do we know which one is correct?
You've walked into the doorjam of my point. My wife's aging hip is as good a predictor of the weather as most of the weatherpeople on TV. Does that make her an expert on climate change?Perhaps she should join the IPCC. She very well might prove more accurate than their climate models.
// Wouldn't we have all been better off if journalists consulted their local "weatherman" before repeating false warnings about things like pack ice and collapsing ice shelves?
So basically, you're saying that the best expert is the one that gives you the answer you want to hear? Because, again, you're saying that local meteorologists are an excellent source of information on climate change, but you appear to embrace ONE local meteorologist's expertise over another's.
Why? How is it YOU chose which one to believe?
Similarly, you declare a cause of the ice collapse in Antarctica as fact, when -- in fact -- it is not. It is theory. I assume you got your information from this New York Times article, Greg, but you ignored the entire context of the research which dealt in possibilities and suppositions. That doesn't mean it's wrong, but it doesn't mean it's right.
That's the problem I have with both sides of the climate change debate. In the end, absent definitives and proof, people believe what they want to believe. There's nothing wrong with that until they demand that everyone else believe it, too.
People that study “paleo-pine-spors” and Greenland ice-cores talk to people that study the jet stream and El Niño and La Niña. If they mostly agree, that is what is meant by “consensus.” Local Meterolologists don’t specialize in any of those things. They may know more about whether than I do, but the Climatologists know more than the Local Meteorologists do.You have it precisely backwards.
You cannot predict weather in Minnesota in the time-frame of a week unless you know what is going on in the jet-stream and in the Pacific.
People who study paleo-climatology are like archeologists....they know what happened but they are not experts in knowing what will happen.
I would think if we are make radical decision based on future climate models, we would listen to people whose business it is to forcast.
Correction:
"My wife's aging hip" should've read "My wife's bad hip." My wife hasn't aged a day in the 26years we've been married. Just wanted to clarify that before it's too late.
//I guess I don't see why conservatives don't like the idea of global warming. What does it have to do with being a liberal or a conservative?
It's a very good question and I believe it gets to the danger posed by politics (by the way, if you haven't heard Rep. Dennis Ozment's farewell speech, you have to drop what you're doing now and listen to it) . As soon as one candidate weighs in on issue facing humanity, it is likely to become a political debate. Once it becomes a political debate, a large measure of healthy skepticism that might previously have led people to research an issue is replaced by an allegiance to the political party and its candidate. We far too often depend on politicians to tell us what to think.
So basically, you're saying that the best expert is the one that gives you the answer you want to hear? Because, again, you're saying that local meteorologists are an excellent source of information on climate change, but you appear to embrace ONE local meteorologist's expertise over another's.Not really.
For instance, I would hope that a question to both Paul Douglas and Mike Fairbourne would respond the same to the question "is the recent decline in the arctic ice pack attributable to global climate change?"
I doubt either would say "yes" because the question is specific and the variables are known.
That is a different question than "Will the weather of the Twin Cities be more like that of Des Moines in 100 years".
If one believes the IPCC models - the answer to the above question is "yes" if not, it is "no, but it could be more like Fariabault's climate".
In all reality, that is the difference between the two meteorologists.
I find it frustrating to see people bound up in this question, arguing minutia over weather forecasters. People who actually have something short-term riding on the question of global warming -- from insurance companies to military intelligence analysts -- seem to be taking it dead seriously and not waiting for proof down to the nth degree. I'm inclined to take a big cue from them.
I guess I don't see why conservatives don't like the idea of global warming. What does it have to do with being a liberal or a conservative?"Global Warming" has become a bagage train that carries every conceivable liberal and socialist agenda from that anti-WTO crowd to every wacho environmental extremist group to the One-World Dream crew.
That is why anything like the plight of fuzzy polar bears to cute penguins becomes an instant cause-celeb to frighten people out of their common-sense.
Are you all really arguing over whether meterologist or climatologists should be able to predict weather more efficiently, or are you arguing whether who knows more....? The issue is global warming and lets just PRETEND that it is REAL. Just incase IT IS REAL.
Can I make a suggestion?
Live simply, live in the moment and live with a conscious.
Greg, unplug your TV or your computer as it really sounds like it can rattle your cage.
//That is a different question than "Will the weather of the Twin Cities be more like that of Des Moines in 100 years".//
Dude-
I live up the cliff from the Mississippi River. I am betting that my son, if he should choose to live in my home 50 years froom now will have prime beach front with palm trees on the shores of the Mississippi Bay.
People who actually have something short-term riding on the question of global warming -- from insurance companies to military intelligence analysts
And now these people are wearing egg on their faces.
Remember the study attributing hurricanes like Katrine to Global Warming?
Last month MIT's Kerry Emanuel wrote a Mea Cupa in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.
Even MIT is spinning like a top to assure everyone that global warming will really, really, really make hurricanes more intense and more frequent.....even though Emanuel wrote
"shows no clear change in the overall numbers of such storms when run on future climates predicted using global climate models."
and "The last 25 years' increase may have little to do with global warming, or the models may have missed something about how nature responds to the increase in carbon dioxide."
But being a professor from a liberal college who still wants to get invited to happy hour, he had to conclude
"The idea that there is no connection between hurricanes and global warming, that's not supported,"
//If one believes the IPCC models - the answer to the above question is "yes" if not, it is "no, but it could be more like Fariabault's climate".
And my point is simply why would I ask a TV meteorologist what the climate will be like in St. Paul 100 years from now when their record on the climate in St. Paul 24 hours from now is quite spotty?
Look, here's the point: it's all showbiz. Lots of maps with arrows and cool graphics and spinning iconic tornadoes...it's a giant medicine show when the ONLY message that matters is whether I need to wear a coat in the morning.
But we have elevated these guys to some sort of scientific status, largely on the basis of the medicine show.
Theoretically, a whole lot more news could be jammed into a half hour TV newscast if Don Shelby simply read the weather forecast and devoted the rest of the time to news. To the extent they don't do that, it's because people want to be entertained.
Does that make TV weatherpeople entertainers? Well, sure, to a certain degree. So maybe we should value their non-what-the-weather-is-going-to-be-tomorrow opinions as a typical opoinnion of an entertainer (not much different than a Brad Pitt or George Clooney) rather than an expert in the subject.
(Piggybacking)
The issue is global warming and lets just PRETEND that it is REAL. Just incase IT IS REAL.
And that's the Reggie Jackson School of TheologyI referred to earlier. He was asked about the existence of God once (dont' ask me why) and he said something like, "I don't know one way or the other, but I ain't taking no chances." (g)
I live up the cliff from the Mississippi River. I am betting that my son, if he should choose to live in my home 50 years froom now will have prime beach front with palm trees on the shores of the Mississippi Bay.Yeah, and there is a lot of people who believe that angels with trumpets will appear in the sky by then to.
I prefer science to either rightwing or in this case leftwing religious fundamentalism.
//I'm inclined to take a big cue from them.
And that's where I AM curious. How is it changing things for you? Or does it.
If you accept global warming as fact, what do you do differently -- in your opinion -- from those who do not?
//Last month MIT's Kerry Emanuel wrote a Mea Cupa in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.
So was the Kerry Emanuel who had a different opinion before the one to pay attention to? Or is the Kerry Emanuel who wrote the mea culpa the one to pay attention to?
Doesn't the answer to that depend on which Kerry Emanuel conclusion you want to believe is true?
And again, it gets back to the Fairbourne vs. Douglas situation. The one you're going to accept as being right is the one you were predisposed to believing is right, isn't it?
One ad during MPR pledge week quoted a listener as saying that the reporters on MPR "feel like family."
I imaging a lot of people view their local weatherperson in the same light. Instead of being a faraway, unknown scientist, the weatherperson is a known personality who "looks them in the face" regularly. They are a comfortable, known presences in their communities.
Also, the weatherperson ought to have enough of a practical, scientific background to be of some assistance to non-scientists in evaluating "other people's science."
Most weather people are interested in weather. With all the talk of global warming, it would be reasonable to assume that the weather person may have looked into Global Warming more deeply than the casual viewer. Maybe they actually haven't, but I can understand why someone might believe they have.
Finally, the casual viewer (and the casual news station) might not really grasp the difference between climate and weather.
And my point is simply why would I ask a TV meteorologist what the climate will be like in St. Paul 100 years from now when their record on the climate in St. Paul 24 hours from now is quite spotty?Because predicting tomorrow's weather is a whole lot harder than it is to predict the climate in twenty years.....even though predicting the climate is almost as spotty as predicting the weather.
Bob, I can predict with near certainty that Mystic Lake makes 89 cents on the dollar gambled. That is like predicting climate but I could not tell you whether the next card will be a Jack.
Anyone who saw the film "21" knows there are people who are pretty good at predicting blackjack.
If I were looking to know what my odds are in a casino.....I want ask people who specialize in probability....the best people for that are the ones who focus on the near term.
Their skill is prediction.
//Their skill is prediction.
Also known as "guessing."
If your skill is guessing, are you really a scientist?
So was the Kerry Emanuel who had a different opinion before the one to pay attention to? Or is the Kerry Emanuel who wrote the mea culpa the one to pay attention to?I think you are asking the wrong question.
The question should be "when good scientists like Kerry Emanuel follow science where ever it leads and it leads in circles WHAT DO I DO ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING?"
The answer "nothing radical" makes common sense.
Besides, there is nothing about Global Warming that $5 a gallon gas won't cure.
//Finally, the casual viewer (and the casual news station) might not really grasp the difference between climate and weather.
I think that's a very fair statement. And the fact we mix the roles of the meteorologists and ask them to be climatologists does nothing to distinguish the two, I would argue.
//The question should be "when good scientists like Kerry Emanuel follow science where ever it leads and it leads in circles WHAT DO I DO ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING?"
Did you believe Emanuel was a good scientist when he had a different opinion? If so, did it change yours?
//Besides, there is nothing about Global Warming that $5 a gallon gas won't cure.
Yeah, that's what they said about $3 a gallon gas. (g)
I see it's up another 15 cents a gallon today. Oddly,it's gotten so bad, I simply don't care anymore about daily price increases.
It's like when I used to deliver newspapers in the early, early morning and I could tell a big thunderstorm was coming. I'd just tell myself, "you're gonna get wet and there's nothing you can do about it." Acceptance is liberating! (g)
Also known as "guessing."Not quite. The science of "guessing" is called probablity. Some people just "guess" and others use facts to state probability - big difference.
If you ever read up on Quantum Mechanics -- "probablity" or "guessing" is what holds our bodies together and keeps the stars shining in the night sky.
It's pretty solid stuff....even though it might get your car rained on.
The BIG QUESTION about weather and probability is why do people buy a lotto ticket when the odds are 2,000,000 : 1 and not carry an umbrella when the probability of rain is 80%?
//I prefer science to either rightwing or in this case leftwing religious fundamentalism.//
you lost me. where is the leftwing religious fundamentalism?
maybe your prediction is REALLY called intuition.
I think it is a little disingenuous to call that 80% a probability. The State Lottery knows how many lottery tickets are out there and how many winning ones they put in, so they can calculate a probability by dividing the two. The 80% comes from someone looking at the conditions and saying “on 80 out of 100 days with these same conditions it rained.” A slight difference maybe, but I think it makes a difference.
Why anyone would buy lottery tickets? I can’t answer that one. I think we should put the money the state makes off of the Lottery into some better math education.
//The BIG QUESTION about weather and probability is why do people buy a lotto ticket when the odds are 2,000,000 : 1 and not carry an umbrella when the probability of rain is 80%?
Skyways. (g)
you lost me. where is the leftwing religious fundamentalism?
Your religious belief that "if he should choose to live in my home 50 years froom now will have prime beach front with palm trees on the shores of the Mississippi Bay."
There is no scientific basis for such a belief...that is pure leftwing religous fundamentalism....about as silly as Pat Robertson "Rapture".
The most radical climate model used by the IPCC predicts a 3 foot rise in sea level in one hundred years. The average of the models predicts a 6 inch rise.
But then that is science and what does Global Warming Alarmism really have to do with science?
It is more the stuff of leftwing fundamentalist religion.
ok I see that you are going to point the Religion finger at me and this is clearly, CLEARLY not the case. I have said nothing about religion or that I am basing my beliefs by any religious propaganda written by Pat Whoeveryousaid.
How about saying probability, or prediction or best tool yet intuition. Its just a feeling something you absolutely know.
No I didn't say anything about religion, although both you and Bob have pointed out that I have somehow.
// Bob have pointed out that I have somehow.
Never said any such thing
from insurance companies to military intelligence analysts -- seem to be taking it dead seriously and not waiting for proof down to the nth degree. I'm inclined to take a big cue from them.
Insurance companies are in the business of making conservative (CYA) financial bets, and they market that business by making customers afraid of impending catastrophe. I throw them in the same group as research scientists and organizations that have a vested financial interest in government and academic grants worth millions of dollars annually, all provided by virtue of "researching" the right topics and making the right findings.
Military intelligence analysts: could you have picked a source that has been more demonstrably wrong with their predictions on far more serious, near-term issues in recent memory?
Yeah, that's what they said about $3 a gallon gas. (g)And "they" were correct. Gasoline usage has declined....a smidgen -- but none the less, a decline.
NPR: Americans Using Less Gasoline
For the first time in years, people are buying a little less gasoline in America. Analysts say it may be a sign that high prices and a slowing economy are beginning to change people's driving habits.
Its just a feeling something you absolutely know.That is called faith.
When you have a couple million people all accepting faith in the same thing, and reenforcing each other's faith, it is called religion.
When you have people doing it without question because others like themselves do it - it is called fundamentalist religion.
When you have people doing it without question because others like themselves do it - it is called fundamentalist religion.
That's a bit of a stretch, Greg. If people are doing something merely because a bunch of other people are doing it, that's a fad.
I can remember a dash down the department store aisle when the doors opened to get the few Trivial Pursuit games that were in stock. I don't consider Trivial Pursuit to have been a fundamentalist religion; I do consider it to have been fad.
Fundamentalism in any form comes from the rigidity of the adherence of a principle, not the number of those adhere.
I was speaking of belief, not fashion. I would agree that rigid belief is fundamentalism...but I chose to express that as faith without question.
I had a teacher who grew up in poland. She often spoke of the Communists as religious fundamentalists. She offered an interesting perspective -- suggesting that it was a personality type.
As for this global warming debate, I love the science but hate the religion of it.
Like this thing with meteorologists...what it really comes down to, is what they BELIEVE. There is all kinds of interesting science, but ultimately it is about models and beliefs.
Greggs
If you are connecting what I have said with the Armageddon Story you have totally misunderstood me because that is not even close to what I am trying to say.
The earth is rebirthing itself and in order to do that the earth needs a ton of cleansing. ( you see I haven't mentioned Armegeddon (spelling?) yet...)
We are experiencing the birth of a new world that opperates on a higher vibration.
I see that we do not agree on the issue of Global Warming. I just wanted to make it clear that I do not think Global Warming is Armegeddon.
| May 2008 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | ||||
| 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
| 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 |
| 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 |
| 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |
Master Archive
Recent Entries
- What's right with us?
- A date on the calendar
- The Weekly Quiz
- We're #24!
- After the fact policing
- The Future of News redux
- Five at 8 -11/20/09: Things to do while reading the health care bill
- FAA computer outage had little impact at MSP
- An economy-to-English translation
- Five at 8 - 11/18/09: 'Down in front!'
Categories
- Arts
- Bridges and roads
- Crime and Justice
- Disasters
- Economy
- Energy
- Floods
- Health
- Icons
- Life
- Marketing and advertising
- Media
- News
- News Cut on Campus
- Northwest Airlines
- Pawlenty
- Politics
- Race
- Regional history
- Religion
- Schools
- Science
- Sports
- Surveys and trivia
- Tech
- The jobs we do
- The political conventions
- The Quiz
- The Unemployed series
- Things that are puzzling
- War
- Weather
Services
In The Spotlight
-
Sound Learning
Looking for ways to ensure your students are doing quality research from credible sources? Sound Learning is a launching point to Minnesota Public Radio's content on the Web. -
The Current Music Blog
Your daily note for good music, news and pop culture. With attempted jokes.
- Become a Member
- Leadership Circle
- Sustaining Members
- Member Discounts
- Become a Sponsor
- Tax Information
- Planned Giving
- Fundraising Credentials
- Vehicle Donation
- Donate Stock