[Vision2020] Why are most meteorologists climate change skeptics?

[Paul Rumelhart]

Here is a link to an article in the Huffington Post that asks the 
question "Why do Meteorologists Dismiss Climate Change Science?":

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marvin-meadors/why-do-meteorologists-dis_b_1289630.html

I was hoping this article would look into this fact from a standpoint of 
"what factors might be involved that cause so many meteorologists to 
question the anthropogenic global warming theory?"  What could cause 
this skepticism?  I had then assumed that they would go through those 
reasons and explain why they might be confused from an "AGW theory is 
right by divine providence" viewpoint.  It was too much to hope that 
they would simply raise the issues as open questions and let people 
think for themselves.

That's why I was surprised that they didn't even do that.  They 
basically took the stance that not only is AGW correct, but climate 
scientists are infallible and your basic weatherman is an uneducated 
lout.  It was told from a slightly contemptuous "look at those crazy 
people!" angle.  They barely even referred to "climate is not weather".  
They mumbled something about how those cretins question climate models 
merely because the ones that are used in meteorology are laughingly 
inaccurate.  But the climate models made by Real Climate Scientists 
predicted Mt. Pinatubo!  *rolls eyes*

So what might make 76% of meteorologists as a group skeptical that man's 
influence is the primary cause of global warming and a whopping 29% 
think it's a scam?  Here are a few reasons to think about.

The first is the one that they ran with.  Climate scientists have 
doctorates in related fields and many meteorologists you see on TV 
don't.  Read the article for more info on this.  I would like to point 
out that while they don't have doctorates in Climatology or a related 
field, they do know your local weather and how that is affected by 
global conditions that are relevant well.  They are a step beyond the 
old-timer that knows the seasons.  And since climatology is, under the 
hood, the study of weather (among other topics), this might mean 
something.  They are a bit more knowledgeable than your average Joe on 
the topic, and they are much more skeptical.  This should raise some red 
flags somewhere, and not in the "we need to debunk these guys" sense.

Another reason was also mentioned in the article.  From what it sounds 
like, the current state of weather prediction via computer models is 
sorely lame.  Granted, the weather is extremely chaotic - but I would 
expect them to being doing better, or at least be more consistent 
amongst the different models.  Since much of climate science is 
predicated on models, this should worry people.  I'd hate to bet the 
farm on a computer model that hasn't been dialed in more than your 
average web browser has.

One more reason that I think that meteorologists are more skeptical: 
they deal day-to-day with the reality of temperature fluctuations.  They 
see how much the temperature fluctuates from early morning to mid 
afternoon.  They see how one day can be much warmer or cooler than the 
previous one.  Alaska saw as much as a 90F change in temperature between 
one day and the next this current winter.  They also see the size of the 
temperature changes as the seasons change, and how the days compare 
year-to-year.  They see the changes in the jet stream, the changes in 
precipitation, and so forth.  Is it not reasonable to be skeptical of 
scientists that take all these temperature swings, from all over the 
globe, and come down with one number per year for a temperature 
anomaly?  That they measure 1F of increase over 90 years from a dataset 
that varies wildly day-to-day, county-to-county, land-to-sea, altitude 
to altitude by large orders of magnitude more than this?  I wish they 
would have at least touched on this.

Anyway, I'm done ranting now.  I wish reporters had the luxury to treat 
this as any other scientific field and not be pressured by their fears 
that This Is Too Important Not to Treat Seriously.

Paul