Ecologist Serves A Massive Burn To Founder Of AccuWeather After He Tells Her To Get Educated
Australia is currently suffering from devastating bushfires that are spread across the country, consuming an estimated 10.7 million hectares (26 million acres; 107,000 square kilometers; 41,000 square miles) and taking 28 people’s lives as of 8 January 2020. The animal population of Australia is taking hit after hit as millions of animals were either lost to the fires or will most likely perish due to loss of food and habitat. It is currently estimated that over a billion animals were lost to the ongoing 2019–’20 Australian bushfire season.
There have been many claims online being spread alleging that arsons were to blame for the current tragic situation in Australia. And while NSW police say they have charged 24 people with deliberately putting bushes to flame, most of the information related to “arson emergency” is vastly exaggerated.
Assistant Professor of Climate Science, Dr. Jacquelyn Gill recently served a monumental burn on Twitter
Image credits: genConnect U
While it’s true that some people have been charged with arson, it is hard to deny that the current bushfire season has not been a consequence of climate change. Ecologist and associate professor Dr. Jacquelyn Gill took to Twitter to explain how climate change affects our environment and how it was a huge factor in the current fires Australia has been experiencing.
She first responded to a tweet about climate change deniers
Image credits: DrKateMarvel
Offering an explanation on how wildfires are impacted by climate change
Image credits: JacquelynGill
However, not everyone was buying Gill’s story, one of those, a self-proclaimed “US Weather Expert”, AccuWeather’s senior VP Mike Smith, decided to voice his opinion. The man called Gill’s response “nonsense” and urged her to get educated on the matter. What he did not see coming was Dr. Jacquelyn Gill’s next reply where she proudly stated that she’s actually a professor teaching the very same subject Smith was trying to school her on. Of course, Twitter met such a clash and satisfying finale with thunderous applause (well, many gifs and memes, to be precise).
However, AccuWeather’s Senior Vice President Mike Smith called Gill’s response “nonsense”
Image credits: USWeatherExpert
Image credits: JacquelynGill
The man even went as far as advising Gill to educate herself on the subject
Image credits: USWeatherExpert
However, she had the perfect response, as any professor would, duh!
Image credits: JacquelynGill
One ecologist backed up the fact that scientists predicted the event over a decade ago
Image credits: sawsharkman
Here’s how people responded to the Twitter exchange
Image credits: throughgate49
Image credits: Kodanshi
Image credits: BoscoBusco
Image credits: ProfBootyPhD
Image credits: RealG_Clausen
Image credits: PaulAtkinsonPDX
Image credits: recovrngchemist
Image credits: PhilipMartin
Image credits: ShockerdyermomR
Image credits: UnrelentingM
You can watch Dr. Jacquelyn Gill talk about climate change and her life in the video below
I find it disturbing that one of the VPs of one of the most trusted meteorology websites in America doesn't understand climate change, or is that just par for the course?
I think it's simply politically motivated global-warming denialism.
you do know this is the guy who literally pioneered the methods used in climate science to study global warming
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
Well, you got one thing right. Climate change is politically motivated!
Actually John Oliver did a great piece on Accuweather. While the National Weather Service is a not for profit that works with other organizations around the world to predict and communicate weather patterns, Accuweather is just a for-profit company that repackages the info from NWS, basically those wacky cgi graphics on the news. Their CEO has no background in being a meteorologist or climate science. They have tried to block and limit the NWS because it basically a giant free source of accurate weather information. So this Twitter exchange is extra amusing: https://time.com/5699545/john-oliver-weather-last-week-tonight/%3famp=true
This. I miss reliable, non-profit weather. Accuweather is a joke.
My understanding is that AccuWeather just repackages information from the National Weather Service. They don't have to pay anything for it (just like we don't), just reformat and sell it. And they make tons of money. AND they are pushing to privatize the National Weather Service, so the rest of us wouldn't have access to weather data at all without paying for it. Not to mention that if it's privatized, there's no reason to think the data would be science-based and not trying to skew markets and such with false weather predictions. The whole idea is a nightmare.
Honestly, I think he's butt hurt he was burned by a girl. He thought he could shut her up cause "girls are stupid", thinking she would not know. Well, BOOM! SHAKALAKA!
Yes the exact misandristic ideology floating about these days, 2 people argueing, ones a female, one's a male, THE WOMANZ Is AUTOzmATICallyz right leL I so intelligenz
OR THE DUSTBOWL -- that was 1930,
He has not denying climate change. He is saying "don't link bushfires to climate change without analysing reasons." Australia has a history of bushfires. In 2002, 15 million hectares burned down. In 1974, 100 million hectares was affected.
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
corporate whores know their pimp and agreeing with climate change is akin to stealing from your pimp.
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
1) He is retired. 2) He is the father of modern day meteorically data gather, is a high respected climate scientist, etc. Look at the full discourse between them, he actually out did her. She is an ecologist, he pioneered much of modern day climate science research. https://twitter.com/USWeatherExpert/status/1214926173811224576
Why is being retired an excuse for ignorance?
Whoa that is a lot of downvotes. From what I understand, all he's stating is a basic scientific premise: you can't declare an observed link as a fact until it's tested with significant findings, and it's difficult to test. It seems obvious to not make a link, but the scientific method strictly relies on significant findings to be able to cry causation. I understand the criticism about this premise while we watch things burn, but I think I get where he's coming from.
He can still get paid by corporate America to agree with him. If it's so fake, why were oil companies already planning for it back in the 70's?
We know what caused the Dust Bowl it was caused by destruction of the grasslands that held the soil together to till the land to produce crops. On a side note Australian officials have charged over 20 people with arson and are investigating more. However, that doesn't mean that climate changes haven't accelerated or made the problem worse.
We have learned that controlled burns of brush, reduce the hot fires that occur when the dried fuel is allowed to build.
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
183 people actually.... But do you honestly think that if the earth was .5 degrees lower that these fires would just poof away? c'mon son. There is currently an unofficial investigation into Richard Branson's ties to a rail company that was not getting the permits needed to build through parts of the state. And it just so happens that those fires destroyed EVERY SINGLE area in which the rail would be constructed.
AlphaPuck only 24 people have been charged for deliberately lighting fires. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/jan/08/police-contradict-claims-spread-online-exaggerating-arsons-role-in-australian-bushfires
Mike Smith, you got the "mansplaining" burn. Hurts doesn't it?
What kind of teenyweenie does he have to give such snotty comebacks? Why do I suspect he still lights his frrts?
If your best argument is the gender of one of the participants of the discussion, then there's no point listening to your opinion.
I find it disturbing that one of the VPs of one of the most trusted meteorology websites in America doesn't understand climate change, or is that just par for the course?
I think it's simply politically motivated global-warming denialism.
you do know this is the guy who literally pioneered the methods used in climate science to study global warming
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
Well, you got one thing right. Climate change is politically motivated!
Actually John Oliver did a great piece on Accuweather. While the National Weather Service is a not for profit that works with other organizations around the world to predict and communicate weather patterns, Accuweather is just a for-profit company that repackages the info from NWS, basically those wacky cgi graphics on the news. Their CEO has no background in being a meteorologist or climate science. They have tried to block and limit the NWS because it basically a giant free source of accurate weather information. So this Twitter exchange is extra amusing: https://time.com/5699545/john-oliver-weather-last-week-tonight/%3famp=true
This. I miss reliable, non-profit weather. Accuweather is a joke.
My understanding is that AccuWeather just repackages information from the National Weather Service. They don't have to pay anything for it (just like we don't), just reformat and sell it. And they make tons of money. AND they are pushing to privatize the National Weather Service, so the rest of us wouldn't have access to weather data at all without paying for it. Not to mention that if it's privatized, there's no reason to think the data would be science-based and not trying to skew markets and such with false weather predictions. The whole idea is a nightmare.
Honestly, I think he's butt hurt he was burned by a girl. He thought he could shut her up cause "girls are stupid", thinking she would not know. Well, BOOM! SHAKALAKA!
Yes the exact misandristic ideology floating about these days, 2 people argueing, ones a female, one's a male, THE WOMANZ Is AUTOzmATICallyz right leL I so intelligenz
OR THE DUSTBOWL -- that was 1930,
He has not denying climate change. He is saying "don't link bushfires to climate change without analysing reasons." Australia has a history of bushfires. In 2002, 15 million hectares burned down. In 1974, 100 million hectares was affected.
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
corporate whores know their pimp and agreeing with climate change is akin to stealing from your pimp.
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
1) He is retired. 2) He is the father of modern day meteorically data gather, is a high respected climate scientist, etc. Look at the full discourse between them, he actually out did her. She is an ecologist, he pioneered much of modern day climate science research. https://twitter.com/USWeatherExpert/status/1214926173811224576
Why is being retired an excuse for ignorance?
Whoa that is a lot of downvotes. From what I understand, all he's stating is a basic scientific premise: you can't declare an observed link as a fact until it's tested with significant findings, and it's difficult to test. It seems obvious to not make a link, but the scientific method strictly relies on significant findings to be able to cry causation. I understand the criticism about this premise while we watch things burn, but I think I get where he's coming from.
He can still get paid by corporate America to agree with him. If it's so fake, why were oil companies already planning for it back in the 70's?
We know what caused the Dust Bowl it was caused by destruction of the grasslands that held the soil together to till the land to produce crops. On a side note Australian officials have charged over 20 people with arson and are investigating more. However, that doesn't mean that climate changes haven't accelerated or made the problem worse.
We have learned that controlled burns of brush, reduce the hot fires that occur when the dried fuel is allowed to build.
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
183 people actually.... But do you honestly think that if the earth was .5 degrees lower that these fires would just poof away? c'mon son. There is currently an unofficial investigation into Richard Branson's ties to a rail company that was not getting the permits needed to build through parts of the state. And it just so happens that those fires destroyed EVERY SINGLE area in which the rail would be constructed.
AlphaPuck only 24 people have been charged for deliberately lighting fires. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/jan/08/police-contradict-claims-spread-online-exaggerating-arsons-role-in-australian-bushfires
Mike Smith, you got the "mansplaining" burn. Hurts doesn't it?
What kind of teenyweenie does he have to give such snotty comebacks? Why do I suspect he still lights his frrts?
If your best argument is the gender of one of the participants of the discussion, then there's no point listening to your opinion.