On the BBC at least, they always were when they were provided by the Met Office.
Seattleâs KOMO has Steve Pool, whoâs a meteorologist.
He even wrote a book: Somewhere I Was Right
Itâs about how the Pacific North Westâs geography makes a bunch of little microclimates that sort of move around, which makes the weather very unpredictable for a given spot on the ground.
Thereâs a huge difference between meteorologist and weatherperson.
A meteorologist is an actual scientist and are typically credentialed. A weatherperson just has to read cues in front of a camera.
I canât see in the Wiki where heâs a qualified meteorologist. i.e. BSc in meteorology. He came from a science reporter role. I stand to be corrected. Actual meteorologists may be slightly annoyed by talking heads being mis-labelled.
If we can get Mr. Bells and Mrs. Michael to give their blessings, sure - weâll be one big menage-a-quatre!
In the mid 80âs he changed directions and became the stations lead
weather forecaster after going back to the University of Washington to
receive specialized training in atmospheric sciences from renowned
professor Clifford Mass.
- (source)
Thatâs not the same thing as a degree. But is a scientist a person who applies the scientific method, or a person who has a degree?
The degree speaks to the extent of education that a person has received. Not a perfect measure at all. Yes many non-qualified people understand and apply the scientific method to their thinking, at least. This guy seems like heâ's genuinely interested in doing a good job of informing the public about meteorology-related matters. I suspect heâs an outlier, though. Most weather presenters seem to be talking heads, more concerned with their spray tans and witty banter with the show hosts.
(Iâm hearing that in this voice)
I have an honest question - not a rhetorical one for @moth @cinquante_sept @Crookedplatipus @m_a_t @Kevin_Godfrey @afabb and anyone else who thinks we need to tone down our outrage because this is just a joke.
As best I can tell, concerns include from society becoming humourless; and movements to fix large problems being undermined by wasting energy on small problems or crying wolf over non-problems. I disagree that either of those are serious concerns, but I think others have expressed that.
The repeated theme is that people complaining about this sort of thing ought to check the facts before they react.
So my question is, why is this important to you? Iâm not being facetious. Do you think we are in trouble as a society because outrage about racism and sexism is running amok? Does it make you feel like you are under attack because something you say might be misinterpreted in the future? Iâm just spit-balling ideas here, but I said above it was worth listening to people who are upset about something, and I so I am willing to listen.
It just seems like the âletâs cool our jetsâ talk is a little weird in a forum where people are just discussing an incident that happened in the past tense and no one is taking or even calling for any concrete action (Iâm the only one who called for killings, and I suggested they be at random, which makes the suggestion neutral as far as the debate at hand is concerned). It seems like discussion about how peopleâs actions sometimes upset other people touches a nerve with some people, and while the typical explanation is that people in positions of relative power donât like to have that power undermined, thatâs a sociological/behavioural point of view that canât be meaningfully applied to individuals. Since you are here, I wonder if youâd take the time to share why this is upsetting to you.
LibertĂ© is both (sort of â not sure what a certificate in meteorology entails) as well as a nationally ranked figure skater as a kidâŠ
LibertĂ© earned her certificate in meteorology from Mississippi State University in August, 2015. She also has a masterâs degree in Public Health from USCâs Keck School of Medicine, plus a certification in broadcast journalism from UCLA and a bachelorâs degree in Journalism from University of Massachusetts Amherst.
Youâre in the wrong thread, friend, if you donât want to be preached at.
That seems like a huge leap. Weâre all in the position of not knowing whether we are the dumb ones in any given situation, but that doesnât mean I should give the same value to, âThat joke you make might have hurt someoneâs feelingsâ as I would to, âNot sacrificing a goat to Baal might mean youâll get scurvy.â
If the title of this post was âLA man slut shames wife in their living roomâ then I would be saying, âWe donât know about their personal relationship so we shouldnât jump to conclusionsâ while at the same time saying, âWhere the hell did this footage come from?â
I have a friend who I make despicably offensive jokes with. Why do we do that? Thereâs a lot that goes into that, I think a significant part of it is that we share a very dark worldview and we laugh at the horror we see around us. Another part of it is a way of reminding ourselves to think about our own biases - a joke we make between ourselves about someoneâs race serves as a reminder to us that we probably actually are judging that person because of their race even though weâd rather not be doing so, and we should think about how we might be doing that. Itâs roundabout self-deprecation mixed with cosmic horror.
If I were a presidential candidate and I tweeted such a joke, I wouldnât expect the world to understand my life story and our relationship, or to see such a joke as anything other than what it literally would be in that context: racism, sexism, whatever.
If the idea of people making their own interpretations of your jokes is problematic for you, or if the idea that people might talk about your jokes in a context beyond the one in which you made them is something you donât like, avoid making jokes on TV.
Itâs only racism or sexism if the person âhas a problem with itâ or one single dimwitted reader thinks itâs âfunnyâ, in which case nobody is allowed to discuss or hold their opinions.
And yet, discussing amongst ourselves outside of the controlled auspices of the regressivesâ approved narrative is the real thoughtcrime.
Okay. Good question. Hereâs my take on an honest answer:
it is actually so important to me because the topic of equality is too important to me to be wasted on false alarms so the other side can call everyone a SJW or whatever. it is also important to me because a culture of outrage has risen on the web, that does not reflect a genuine concern about the topics. People build up social media identities with which they react on viral news which spread too fast for an actual reality check. Rumors blow up and explode in the face of those actually affected by inequality and oppression.
If we want positive change, and I do, we must spend a good deal of our energy at uncovering the false positives.
I think to talk about wasting energy on false alarms, we need to figure out what we mean by a false alarm. Like I said above, if this was a private joke made in private I would be saying we shouldnât judge interactions between individuals since we donât know the context. It was a public joke made on TV, so the audience is expected to have a reaction. If many people felt there was something wrong with the joke - that it seemed like harassment to them or otherwise made them feel uncomfortable - then that isnât a false alarm, that really happened. I donât think this is a false alarm at all because even if she was fine with the joke it wasnât a private joke.
But you say that the outrage people express on the web doesnât reflect a genuine concern for the issues. I wonder what makes you think that. I think that people who thought the clip was terrible posting here genuinely thought the clip was terrible.
Anyway, I feel like I didnât quite get an answer to my question (well, to the question I meant to be asking, I guess): what problems do you feel the culture of outrage is creating?
It looks like you are saying itâs a problem with crying wolf (and the resulting not-being-taken-seriously).
What I keep seeing when I look at examples of injustice is that no example is ever good enough. You take police killing unarmed young black men and it seems like every single case, when examined individually, results in an acquittal. Itâs obvious there is a problem with the overall numbers, but our standards for saying there is a problem with a particular case are so high that nothing is ever done. If Rosa Parks made her famous ride today weâd be bogged down in an endless conversation about where there were vacant seats on that particular bus and whether Parks was actually too tired to walk to the back as she said she was instead of seeing it as a tiny fragment of a systemic problem.
So Iâm much more concerned with the drive to justify and perfect examples than I am with generalized outrage about events. Generalized outrage tends to explode in the direction of specific incidents, but it isnât really about them any more than couples really get divorced because someone never does the dishes. Focusing on the specifics of examples weighs everything down and makes everything seem trivial.
Okay, please understand⊠Iâm not defending what happened. I was trying to have a rational discussion about other possible ways of looking at the situationâconjecture, mostly. Considering it from other angles. It was a mistake to try and do that here, and I recognize that now.
I agree that a public apology needs to be made. I agree that itâs ridiculous that that meteorologist was treated as if the sight of her body was shameful. and that it can (and will) be used as an example of the larger cultural issue at hand regardless of her statement. And thatâs the last Iâll say about it. On to safer threadsâŠ