Republican Meteorologist Calls for Drastic Changes in Order to Combat Frightening Climate Change

Updated On

We may collect a share of sales from items linked to on this page. Learn more.

Meteorologists are not known for being green, let alone Republican ones. However, recently Paul Douglas offered his thoughts on climate change and proved both stereotypes wrong in this case. Douglas is a self-proclaimed moderate Republican, founder of five different companies and Penn State meteorologist. Since 1979 his life has been tracking weather for our convenience and safety on the television.

Despite his political leanings, he is adamant that the effects of global warming is not a hoax, but a very real, scientific challenge that we all need face, be it instaling solar panels on our homes or curtailing our dependence on oil. It wasn’t always so cut and dry for him however. Throughout the 1980s, Douglas was also skeptical that an upward trend in global temperatures were truly the result of man made gases.

Tthis notable upward trend,however, continued consistently. By the mid-90s, even Douglas had no choice but to acknowledge these unsettling changes. At this point, the weather was becoming remarkably erratic, unpredictable and intense; far more than usual.He began including climate statistics in daily weather segments on television such as annual trends in flash-flooding, hail, humidity, decreased snowfall and the like.

Sadly, Douglas found that mixing climate and weather was a problem in local TV news given its reliance on Q-scores and market research. In 2008, he lost his job in local TV. Douglas did however continue to write a daily column for the Star Tribune. According to Douglas, “Mixing climate news in with weather reports made me a lightning rod for skeptics there, too. The flame-mail was relentless”

Douglas felt strongly about speaking out and he continued to, despite hate mail. Douglas discovered that climate science demonstrates that over a long period of time, the actual statistics have changed. Things that used to happen frequently, such as consistent winter snow cover, now occur much less reliably.

Furthermore, bizarre weather extremes that used to occur rarely, now happen with increasing frequency such as intense drought or dangerous wildfires. New statistics that previously would never have occurred at all, now do happen such as the 15,000 new U.S. temperature records in March alone. Meteorological reasoning simply cannot explain these frightening facts.

According to Douglas, the changes are tiny pieces of a much larger puzzle. When pieced together one can see the full puzzle: There is simply more heat and moisture in the atmosphere, and our emissions are largely responsible for keeping it there. This millennium’s first decade was the warmest on record. Amazingly, it included nine out of 10 of the hottest years to date.

Greenhouse gas levels are at their highest in 800,000 years. Clearly, there are far too many coincidences not to take this seriously. Furthermore, Douglas acknowledges the sheer lunacy in the premise that by releasing 30 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year is somehow safe and perfectly okay.

The truth is, regardless of Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative; extremes are simply becoming more extreme. According to Douglas himself,

“We’ve turned climate science into a bizarre litmus test for conservatism. To pretend that heat-trapping gases can be waved away with a nod and a smirk is political fairytale….There is a large and growing body of evidence. The way nature works applies the same to Republican and Democrat, Christian and Muslim, animal, tree and stone. Why do people who profess to love and follow God roll their eyes? Luke 16:2 says ‘Man has been appointed as a steward for the management of God’s property, and ultimately he will give account for his stewardship.’ It’s a message that my father put succinctly: Actions have consequences.”

  • Ian Andrew

    As the Co-founder and Editor-in-Chief of Greener Ideal, Ian has been a driving force in environmental journalism and sustainable lifestyle advocacy since 2008. With over a decade of dedicated involvement in environmental matters, Ian has established himself as a respected expert in the field. Under his leadership, Greener Ideal has consistently delivered independent news and insightful content that empowers readers to engage with and understand pressing environmental issues.

    Ian’s expertise extends beyond editorial leadership; his hands-on experience in exploring and implementing sustainable practices equips him with practical knowledge that resonates with both industry professionals and eco-conscious audiences. This blend of direct involvement and editorial oversight has positioned Ian as a credible and authoritative voice in environmental journalism and sustainable living.

2 thoughts on “Republican Meteorologist Calls for Drastic Changes in Order to Combat Frightening Climate Change”

  1. Since I will likely be challenged as a denier I will provide an example of where Mr. Douglas’s views clash with peer reviewed science. For example he offers the view that droughts are increasing/intensifying in his statement, “Furthermore, bizarre weather extremes that used to occur rarely, now happen with increasing frequency such as intense drought…”. However there is a field of climate research called Paleoclimatology where scientists study past climate and one need not travel very far into the past to see drought extremes that are hundreds of times worse than anything seen today. Here are examples of several peer reviewed studies that refute Mr. Douglas’s claim on drought.

    “Dr. Scott Stine, a paleoclimatologist at California State University at Hayward……” who found, “about 1,100 years ago, what is now California baked in two droughts, the first lasting 220 years and the second 140 years. Each was much more intense than the mere six-year dry spells that afflict modern California from time to time, new studies of past climates show. The findings suggest, in fact, that relatively wet periods like the 20th century have been the exception rather than the rule in California for at least the last 3,500 years, and that mega-droughts are likely to recur.

    Peer reviewed source =

    Also, “geoscientists Cody Routson, Connie Woodhouse and Jonathan Overpeck conducted a study of the southern San Juan Mountains in south-central Colorado. The region serves as a primary drainage site for the Rio Grande and San Juan rivers” and found, “Almost 900 years ago, in the mid-12th century, the southwestern U.S. was in the middle of a multi-decade megadrought. It was the most recent extended period of severe drought known for this region. But it was not the first.

    The second century A.D. saw an extended dry period of more than 100 years characterized by a multi-decade drought lasting nearly 50 years, says a new study from scientists at the University of Arizona.”

    Peer reviewed source =

    And another mega drought find

    Today’s droughts are nothing compared to past droughts that were so much worse than today and likely killed off the Anasazi Indians. I can provide documented peer reviewed studies that clash with other anecdotal evidence that Mr. Douglas bases his views on. The science doesn’t care if Mr Douglas is a Republican. His views should never be judged for his political ideology nor should they be examined through political ideology, but instead they should be examined in the light of scientifc evidence.

  2. Sadly, money speaks louder than self-preservation. Too many people can only see five miles from their home, three days into the future and no farther than their wallets. Climate change is bigger than all three and is a threat to their way of life. They don’t want to know and they will fight to keep from knowing.


What do you think? Leave a comment!