Pundits and weathermen

The thing about being a political commentator and being a TV weather reporter is that both can be wrong 50% of the time and yet still keep their jobs.

The difference is that the weather people are trying to be as accurate as possible. al_roker Political reporters don’t always care.

Mostly this is because some political reporters are in reality propagandists.  They have no interest in the truth; getting people to agree with their already decided-upon conclusions outweighs any desire for accuracy or even honesty.  The ends justifies the means.

Rush Limbaugh is the Poster Boy for this.  Like many of his pals in the right-wing media collective, he has no qualifications for the position whatsoever other than a loud mouth and a desire to never do any research.  His latest lie is that the “Polar Vortex” is another one of them there liberal conspiracies out to convince people of climate change.

So it’s nice to see Al Roker — someone who, unlike Limbaugh, is actually qualified to talk about climate — aim for facts.  (You remember facts?  They used to help convince people of the truth.)

On the Today show, he literally told Limbaugh and all the doubters to “stuff it.” Roker pulled out his old college textbook ‘The AMS Glossary of Meteorology’ from 1959 which used the term.  “Rush Limbaugh claims the Polar Vortex is a creation of a left-wing, liberal media conspiracy,” he tweeted. “It’s Meteorology 101. No political agenda.”

And that’s the silly thing — that this is a political issue at all.  It isn’t, and it shouldn’t be, any more than evolution should be a political issue.

“The good thing about science,” says Dr. Neil DeGrasse Tyson, “is that it’s true whether you believe it or not.”