Dan Satterfield is the weatherman at WHNT-TV in Huntsville, Ala. He works in a profession becoming known more each day for its opposition to the science behind climate change.

Let’s be clear: these are the people that predict the weather, not study the climate. They are two very different things that require different expertise. However, if I was a weatherman, I might balk at someone saying they can generally predict the climate in decades when I can’t even get the weather right tomorrow.

But I’m not and I know better than to simplify climate change like that. Satterfield is, however, and on his blog, he did a fantastic job detailing just why the vast majority of his colleagues are what we already knew them to be – wrong.

After serious debate with himself over whether his platform is the place to advocate a climate change position, he comes to an objective conclusion.

“Let’s look at it from a logical and scientific perspective.
EVERY major scientific organisation on Earth has endorsed the IPCC reports. This includes strongly worded warnings, that we must act, from the American Meteorological Society, the AGU, the AAAS.

He readily admits that there are a few scientists out there who still are skeptical. Problem is, they are the ones speaking up. Weatherman and spin doctors are.

Even more telling is to look online at the number of scientists who are writing blogs about the latest research.

Real Climate is the most popular and is written by several scientists from NASA and Universities. Climate Progress is another one that takes on the political issue and covers the science. Joe Romm the author has a doctorate in physics. Only in it for the Gold is another excellent resource by Dr. Michael Tobis.

The most popular blog on the “other side” is written by a retired TV weatherman who never even finished an undergraduate degree in either Meteorology or climatology. In second place is one written by the former spin master for extreme right wing Senator Inhofe of Oklahoma, who has said that all the scientists in the world are perpetrating the greatest hoax in human history. Yet another is written by someone who has a doctorate in, wait for it…

political science

.
So, even before getting to the science, Satterfield looks at the political spectrum and points out that scientists are giving the pro-climate change side of the argument, while politicians are denying.

Oh, he does get to the science though.

If you want to make the claim that the sun is responsible for climate change, then you will need to show why the dozens of papers that show it’s not are wrong. You need to show why people like Dr. Judith Lean at the U.S. Naval Observatory is wrong when she puts together a graph of the sun’s output showing it has been remarkably constant in the last 50 years.

You also will need to show why Dr. Ben Santer is wrong. Santer showed conclusively that the pattern of warming is not what we would see from the sun getting brighter, but it IS what we would see if it were increasing greenhouse gases. There are many more too.

Satterfield goes on breaking down the science versus the spin for quite some time. He has a unique position in the debate, where he understands the science while working in the media. At one point in the post he mentions some of the crazy calls newsrooms across America receive everyday. He would, he works there.

The post is also littered with graphs and charts, all of which are included in the recently presented scientific data of climate change. It is honestly a great resource from an unlikely advocate.

But his main point, it seems, is to remind meteorologists where their expertise lies. Then to do the same for weatherman, some of whom aren’t even meteorologists. The science is settled, no matter what the talking heads on political television, or in front of the doppler radar, say.

Check out Satterfield’s website dedicated specifically to climate change here.

Media Matters reports today that President Obama, in a town hall in Nevada, spent some time talking about climate change. The president explained effects of climate change as they relate to some of the current weather, such as snow in Washington.

“It means the planet as a whole is getting warmer. But what it may mean is, for example, Vancouver which supposed to be getting snow during the Olympics, suddenly is at 55 degrees and Dallas suddenly is getting seven inches of snow. The idea is that the planet as a whole get warmer, you start seeing changing weather patterns and that creates more violent storm systems, more unpredictable weather, so any single place might end up being warmer.”

Watch it:

Senator Jim Inhofe

One of the more interesting things about the fight for comprehensive legislation here in Washington are the back and forth arguments that happen between opposing sides. A couple of days ago it was Rachel Maddow telling Glenn Beck to back off, after Beck falsely called her a liar.

Yesterday, it was U.S. Senator Jim Inhofe, of “climate change is a hoax” fame, attacking a column written by New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman. Because the free exchange of ideas is only okay if your side is giving all of the ideas.

So Senator Inhofe, here are some ideas for you, in response to your continued attacks on climate legislation.

To open, Inhofe sarcastically praises Friedman for saying that “global warming” should actually be called “global weirding” because of the range of effects it has on weather events.

“It’s appropriate that Mr. Friedman drop “global warming,” for the simple fact that there has been “no statistically significant warming” for the last 15 years. This is not the judgment of a skeptic, but of Phil Jones, the former director of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU), who is at the center of the ‘Climategate’ scandal.”

However, that is one line short of the whole paragraph and who are we to leave something out: “(Jones did say that in his view that the overall temperature trend is one of warming).”

You probably had to read that a couple of times given the grammar issues in the sentence and probably also because it seemingly contradicted the entire paragraph before it. The argument of climate scientists is that the “trend is one of warming,” not “it was really hot yesterday.” Like Jones’ full response to being asked whether he agrees there was no significant warming from 1995 to the present:

“Yes,” said Jones, “but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

In the long term outlook, the decade 2000-2009 was the warmest on record, which would suggest a general trend of warming from the one before it and the one before that.

And, guess what else Jones said in the same interview last weekend:

“I’m 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 – there’s evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.”

He later said that one of the reasons he believes the current warming is manmade is that it can’t be explained in another way.

Next came jobs.

“Mr. Friedman’s insurance policy means exorbitant premiums with no protection in the event disaster occurs. Take the Waxman-Markey bill. According to the National Black Chamber of Commerce, Waxman-Markey would cause a net reduction-yes, even taking into account “green jobs”-of up to 3.6 million jobs.”

Interestingly, the paragraph Inhofe is responding to with that statement said nothing about jobs. It was actually about investing in renewable energy as a means of reducing our dependence on foreign oil and, “diminish[ing] the dollars that are sustaining the worst petro-dictators in the world who indirectly fund terrorists and the schools that nurture them.”

Apparently national security wasn’t worth the argument. Oh, and those NBCC numbers about Waxman-Markey, better make that, “according to Exxon,” which has dished out more than $200,000 to the NBCC, while doing the same to many other climate-deniers.

Then there was the Energy and Public Works hearing where Harry Alford, CEO of the NBCC, called Chairwoman Barbara Boxer “racial” because she quoted other groups about the effects of climate change legislation on the black community. The NBCC was claiming that legislation would be detrimental to that community. Boxer was refuting that.

Then, was there any question this would come back to oil?

“FRIEDMAN: “And Iran, Russia, Venezuela and the whole OPEC gang are high-fiving each other. Nothing better serves their interests than to see Americans becoming confused about climate change, and, therefore, less inclined to move toward clean-tech and, therefore, more certain to remain addicted to oil. Yes, sir, it is morning in Saudi Arabia.”

“RESPONSE: According to a recently released report from the Congressional Research Service, America’s combined recoverable natural gas, oil, and coal endowment is the largest on earth.”

First, note that Friedman was talking about oil, not natural gas or coal. Coal is already prevalent in the U.S. and Inhofe claimed we needed to increase our energy production, meaning new sources, or more oil, would be necessary.

Surely adding the other two, especially natural gas, would help lift the United States’ numbers. However, according the Energy Information Administration, the U.S. has far less oil reserves than OPEC countries, leading our $1 billion daily price tag. Mr. Friedman was talking about a dangerous U.S. reliance on oil and he was right, just like above when he said that we are, “sustaining the worst petro-dictators in the world who indirectly fund terrorists and the schools that nurture them.”

How about we try something new instead. We have the opportunity to pass a comprehensive clean energy and climate bill that reduces our dependence on oil, invests in a clean energy future – a future our president and our venture capitalists see as the next big world industry – and creates jobs, while making our air and water cleaner and our country safer.

We have already seen the kinds of projects these investments support, such as the $8 billion for carbon emission-cutting high-speed rail that was endorsed by none other than the House Minority Whip, Republican Eric Cantor.

Surely you can’t argue with that, can you Senator? If you’re biggest donors, Koch Industries and Murray Energy (two of nation’s largest coal and Big Oil companies) get in the way, we understand.

In an interview on with Rachel Maddow yesterday, while explaining (once again) why a snow storm doesn’t disprove climate change, Bill Nye the Science Guy offered a simple explanation for the continuing confusion about the science of global warming: old people.

In his yeas as an educator, Nye says he’s seen a generational gap in the ability to grasp climate change. Unsurprisingly, young people get it.

It’s mostly generational…older people just have a much harder time grasping the idea that you have many billions of people on the planet with a very very thin atmosphere, you’re able to affect its climate…younger people are able to sort of embrace it, understand the evidence and move forward.

This is yet another reason why young people need to make our voice heard on the need for climate action. We can’t rely on our leaders our leaders to recognize the existential threat facing our generation on their own. We have to make them see it, and let them know they can’t put politics ahead of our future.

By Rev. Lennox Yearwood, Jr. and Rev. Jesse Jackson

Cross-posted from Hip Hop Caucus. Find out more about the Clean Energy Now! Bus Tour.

Our country, and the world, faces the duel crisis of a failed American economy and climate change that threatens life on this planet as we know it.

Poor people and people of color are feeling the adverse impacts of climate change first and worst, from rising energy prices, to increases in heat-related illnesses. Ultimately, however, the destruction resulting from our planet’s rising temperature will not be discerning of national borders, a family’s yearly income, or the hue of one’s skin.

It is similar to what we are all experiencing in these difficult economic times. No matter the race of a worker, when the lights are turned off for the last time in the manufacturing plant, or in any business for that matter, suddenly we amazingly look alike.

We as a nation, must commit to an inclusive transition to a clean energy economy, by decreasing our dependence on dirty fossil fuels, investing in new clean-energy technologies, and putting the people who most need jobs back to work. Our leaders must take urgent action — this year — to put us on a path to a prosperous clean energy future.

This is not a new call to action. We have been hearing experts, business leaders, and politicians talk about addressing climate change for a while now. Last year the U.S. House of Representatives passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act. Now the Senate is debating whether they too will pass a clean energy jobs bill.

At the start of Black History Month, ten years into the 21st century, it is time for the African American community to have their voices heard on this issue. For too long communities of color have not seen climate change as their problem but we must now be a part of the solution.

African American’s historical struggle for economic opportunity inherently ties into the necessary global effort to reduce CO2 emissions and stop climate change. This was a topic that we discussed at the recent 13th Annual Rainbow PUSH Wall Street Project Economic Summit in New York, and a topic that we will be mobilizing African American communities and young people around on the upcoming “Hip Hop Caucus Clean Energy Now! Tour”.

A clean-energy economy means new jobs, less pollution in our communities, and increased opportunities for our children. This month the Hip Hop Caucus Clean Energy Now! Tour will travel from New Orleans to Washington DC, through numerous states in a historic effort to ensure the voices of African Americans, and our young people, are heard on the issue of clean-energy jobs and protecting our planet.

Millions of our friends and neighbors are out of work. We can create 1.7 million new jobs and green our cities from the ground up if our leaders in Washington make a commitment to supporting clean-energy here in America.

Clean-energy investments create more than three times the number of jobs than the equivalent investment in the fossil fuel industry. These are green-collar jobs for roofers, electricians, and construction workers, jobs like retrofitting old buildings and constructing new buildings that are energy efficient.

There will also be opportunity for entrepreneurs of color to have ownership in the clean-energy economy. African Americans will be able to go from being energy consumers to also being energy producers.

A clean-energy future is an answer to African American’s calls for jobs, affordable costs of living, and safer, healthier neighborhoods. Big oil and their lobbyists have kept the United States dependent on dirty energy, and they have been allowed to disproportionately pollute the air that children breathe and the water they drink in low-income communities of color.

We know the devastating health effects of pollution. It is the asthma that disproportionally affects our children, it is the allergies that get worse every year, it is the heatstroke that kills too many of our seniors.

Furthermore, if we do not stop climate change, it will only become more expensive to heat and cool our homes, an already horrible burden on low-income families. Households that are at or below 150 percent of the poverty level, or sixty percent of their State’s median income, spend an average of twenty percent of their income on home energy bills. This is six times more than the national average.

There is nothing more dangerous and violent than nations becoming less productive, and more desperate, in the face of ecological disaster. Conversely, the greening of our cities can help us to take back our streets. Studies have shown that residents living in greener surroundings report less fear and less violence in their communities.

We can revive our economy, we can regain our communities, and we can restore our planet, by investing in clean-energy solutions. Fifty years from now, we want our grandchildren and their children to live in a prosperous healthy world because of the decisions that our leaders have the opportunity to make this year. We do not want our future generations to know that they are suffering and dying from drought, flooding, food insecurity, and hurricanes, and cannot afford energy for their homes, because of the lack of political will in Washington under our watch.

During Black History Month every year we celebrate the accomplishments of our African American heroines and heroes. This year, we will make history starting with a clean energy bus tour from New Orleans to Washington DC so that future generations can look to this moment and see that when all of God’s children come together, humanity is capable of saving the planet and providing access to health and wealth for everyone.

Rev. Lennox Yearwood, Jr. is the President and CEO of the Hip Hop Caucus. For more information on the Hip Hop Caucus and the upcoming Hip Hop Caucus Clean Energy Now! Tour, visit www.hiphopcaucus.org. Rev. Jesse L. Jackson, Sr. is the Founder and President of the Rainbow PUSH Coalition (RPC). For more information about the Rainbow PUSH Coalition, please visit www.rainbowpush.org or call (773) 373-3366.