<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
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.<br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Paul<br>
<br>
On 02/23/2012 07:39 PM, Ron Force wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:1330054774.3112.YahooMailNeo@web46112.mail.sp1.yahoo.com"
type="cite">
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: rgb(255, 255,
255); font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif;
font-size: 12pt;">
<div>Well, you could have quoted this from the article:<br>
<span style="font-style: italic;"> 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 </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true" style="font-style: italic;"
href="http://www.cjr.org/cover_story/hot_air.php?page=all"
target="_hplink">field</a><span style="font-style: italic;">."</span>
<blockquote><span style="font-style: italic;">"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 "</span><a
moz-do-not-send="true" style="font-style: italic;"
href="http://www.cjr.org/cover_story/hot_air.php?page=all"
target="_hplink">myself</a><span style="font-style:
italic;">.""</span><br style="font-style: italic;">
<br>
One of the leading weatherman deniers is John Coleman,
founder of the Weather Channel. He has an undergraduate
degree in ...journalism.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
<div>Ron Force<br>
Moscow Idaho USA<br>
</div>
<div style="font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif;
font-size: 12pt;">
<div style="font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif;
font-size: 12pt;">
<div dir="ltr"> <font face="Arial" size="2">
<hr size="1"> <b><span style="font-weight: bold;">From:</span></b>
Paul Rumelhart <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com"><godshatter@yahoo.com></a><br>
<b><span style="font-weight: bold;">To:</span></b>
Vision 2020 <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com"><Vision2020@moscow.com></a> <br>
<b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Sent:</span></b>
Thursday, February 23, 2012 5:59 PM<br>
<b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Subject:</span></b>
[Vision2020] Why are most meteorologists climate change
skeptics?<br>
</font> </div>
<br>
<br>
Here is a link to an article in the Huffington Post that
asks the question "Why do Meteorologists Dismiss Climate
Change Science?":<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marvin-meadors/why-do-meteorologists-dis_b_1289630.html">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marvin-meadors/why-do-meteorologists-dis_b_1289630.html</a><br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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*<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Paul<br>
<br>
=======================================================<br>
List services made available by First Step Internet,<br>
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.fsr.net" target="_blank">http://www.fsr.net</a><br>
mailto:<a moz-do-not-send="true"
ymailto="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com"
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>
=======================================================<br>
<br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<pre wrap="">
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</a>
=======================================================</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>