[Vision2020] Why are most meteorologists climate change skeptics?
Ron Force
rforce2003 at yahoo.com
Thu Feb 23 22:09:18 PST 2012
I guess I should have been more explicit. The telling thing was that according to the article, half the "meteorologists" had no degrees in the subject or atmospheric science, and I assume most of those were media types, as you don't get hired into science-based positions without a relevant academic background. Your local media "weatherman" doesn't do actual forecasting, they're forecast readers, and often just an interjection of light humor at 10:15. From reading his bio, there's no indication that John Coleman ever did any forecasting, he was a media person. Anyone can join the the AMS, just pay the membership fee.
As a former pilot, I had a through education in weather, as it was important for the preservation of life and limb. But I wouldn't pronounce myself an expert in climate science.
Ron Force
Moscow Idaho USA
________________________________
From: Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>
To: Ron Force <rforce2003 at yahoo.com>
Cc: Vision 2020 <Vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 9:27 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Why are most meteorologists climate change skeptics?
I assumed people were capable of clicking on the link. It always bugs me when people copy the whole article with just a quick one-liner at the top; it's convenient but it's also technically a copyright violation. It's also unnecessary because you can click on the link and look at it yourself.
Did you know that meteorological reporting is only a subset of
meteorologists? It's not just the guy or gal on TV with the perfect
hair delivering those sound bites that can be classified as
meteorologists. It's also the people that forecast the weather
(including hurricanes and tornadoes, droughts, floods, etc.), do
research in atmospheric physics or atmospheric chemistry, and that
gather and analyze much of the data used by climate scientists as
well as studying how the atmosphere interacts with the ocean and how
different feedbacks operate.
It's easy to denigrate those who have a difference in opinion. That
is, essentially, what this article is trying to do. John Coleman,
for example, has fifty years of experience forecasting weather on a
daily basis. He was also a professional member of the American
Meteorological Society. He may not be a climate scientist, but he's
more than just a simple journalist. While it's convenient to think
of him as an uneducated schlub, I suspect he picked up some
knowledge during his fifty year weather forecasting career. Enough
that we shouldn't just blatantly sweep whatever he says under the
rug.
I just wish the author of the article had had the balls to just
report on this as an interesting phenomenon. Instead, he felt
obliged to toe the party line and use his article to belittle all
those who follow a particular career path. I mean, how could they
be right? They are contradicting *scientists*, man! Don't get me
started on how unscientific argument from authority is.
Paul
On 02/23/2012 07:39 PM, Ron Force wrote:
Well, you could have quoted this from the article:
> As the only professional who speaks about science in an atmosphere of 30-second sound bites, weather forecasters are often asked to gauge an opinion on anything that may touch upon a scientific topic, although they may have scant knowledge of the field. These inquiries may give them the impression they are more omniscient in their science knowledge than they really are. "There is one little problem with this: most weather forecasters are not really scientists. When a broad pool of weather forecasters were surveyed in a study barely half of them had a college degree in meteorology or another atmospheric science. Only 17 percent had received a graduate degree, effectively a prerequisite for an academic researcher in any scientific field."
>"Among the certified meteorologists surveyed in 2008, 79 percent considered it appropriate to educate their communities about climate change. Few of them, however, had taken the steps necessary to fully educate themselves about it. When asked which source of information on climate change they most trusted, 22 percent named the American Meteorological Society (AMS). But the next most popular answer, with 16 percent, was "no one." The third was "myself.""
>>
>>One of the leading weatherman deniers is John Coleman,
founder of the Weather Channel. He has an undergraduate
degree in ...journalism.
>>
>
>Ron Force
>Moscow Idaho USA
>
>
>________________________________
> From: Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>
>To: Vision 2020 <Vision2020 at moscow.com>
>Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 5:59 PM
>Subject: [Vision2020] Why are most meteorologists climate change skeptics?
>
>
>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
>
>=======================================================
>List services made available by First Step Internet,
>serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>=======================================================
>
>
>
>
======================================================= List services made available by First Step Internet, serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. http://www.fsr.net mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com =======================================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20120223/09325c92/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list