I used to be like Jim Gandy when I was doing television. Gandy, who chastises people in advance (bolded in the article below) who might want to visit his blog and discus the issues, probably won’t win any converts with that sort of attitude. Attendees of my Australian tour lectures might be surprised to know that I did this type of viewer education project on Earth Day in 1990 and 1991, with nationwide results. I had 189 TV stations involved in 45 states, and it didn’t take me a year to “study”. And, like the surfacestations.org project, I did it on a shoestring with volunteers and no funding. I’ll write about this in a future post, and I may very well do the project again, but this time to educate the public about why what Senator Graham recently called the “overselling” of climate change.
“I think they’ve oversold this stuff, quite frankly. I think they’ve been alarmist and the science is in question…”– Senator Lindsey Graham, former supporter/designer of the Kerry-Leiberman-Graham cap and trade bill.
– Anthony
=========================================
What Weathermen Know About Climate Change
Local TV’s ‘station scientists’ have diversity of views, education.
By Emilie Lorditch Inside Science News Service
 "Photo: NOAA, License: N/A")
View full-size imageCredit: NOAA
WASHINGTON (ISNS) — Climate change is a topic that impacts the weather not only globally, but also locally. While some people may be concerned about the melting ice sheets at the far corners of the Earth, what most really want to know is “how will global warming affect me?” — and they often turn to their local weatherperson to find out.
A study released today study by the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication in Fairfax, Va., showed that 27 percent of broadcast meteorologists — who are, according to the National Institutes of Standards and Technology, “often the most visible representatives of science in U.S. households” — believe that global warming is a scam.
According to the National Science Foundation’s 2010 Science and Engineering Indicators, television is the number one source the public turns to for information about science and technology. Broadcast meteorologists are often the only people at TV news stations with a science background. But the education and experience of those who deliver news about the weather varies dramatically.
“In television, when it comes to weather, there is an extremely wide range of education sets,” said Jim Gandy, chief meteorologist at WLTX-TV in Columbia, S.C. “Some have bachelor’s degrees, master’s degrees, and Ph.D.’s, but you also have some without.”
When a topic such as climate change comes up in the news, broadcast meteorologists — no matter what their educational background — are often thrust into the spotlight. Some embrace the opportunity and try to educate their audiences on the science, while others avoid it at all costs.
“People are uninformed and believe climate change is a hoax,” said Gandy. “I occasionally respond to comments posted on our station’s website, but you better know your science and get your facts straight before you post on my website.”
Some meteorologists surveyed said that there is a lot of conflicting information about climate change.
“Science is about questioning things and I think we should all be in the middle, question the information,” said Brad Sowder, First Alert Meteorologist at KOAA-TV in Colorado Springs, Colo. “I have been more on the side of a skeptic.”
Another weathercaster who wanted to remain anonymous felt that the topic of climate change is less about the science and more about politics. “Personally, I think that global warming is a political issue, and I feel like it is safer to stay out of it,” he said.
The survey also found that 62 percent of broadcast meteorologists want to report more on climate change.
“We have a good comprehensive look at television weathercasters from this survey,” said Kris Wilson, a senior lecturer with the School of Journalism at University of Texas at Austin and one of the lead investigators of the survey.
Beginning in July, the next phase of the National Science Foundation-funded study will begin. A test case at Gandy’s station will include 30-second segments in some of the weathercasts to educate viewers about climate change.
“It will be a year-long effort using our resources on-air and on the Internet in an effort to educate the public about climate change past, present, and future,” said Gandy. “I wish the public knew how difficult it is to have knowledge of climate science. Simply being a meteorologist is not enough, and this is a mistake that some television meteorologists make.”
h/t to WUWT reader OK S
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“People are uninformed and believe climate change is a hoax,” said Gandy.
He’s got a point there: Climate Change (nee AGW) is not a hoax, it’s a scam.
A hoax is an attempt to garner fame and/or attention. Piltdown Man was a hoax.
A scam is aimed at your wallet.
I can get a number of weather forecasts for the Seattle Area.
One put together by computer models available from NOAA.
Or one put together by an AMS certified meteorologist.
The NOAA forecast is pretty much incapable of correctly reporting current weather conditions anywhere near Seattle except the airport.
The AMS certified meteorologist is pretty smart, he knows that the clouds blow by the airport and bunch up against the cascade mountains dumping rain everywhere east of the airport. He doesn’t rely on the GHCN network to report current conditions, he relies on School Net, a system of weather stations set up at elementary schools as part of their science curriculum.
First, a tempest in a teapot is created over climate variations that nobody fully understands, despite billions in federal funding. Then, we have funding for studies of the COMMUNICATION of that nonexistent knowledge. It’s marvelous how creative Washington can be in spending our REAL tax dollars.
Anthony, I have considerable difficulty imagining you as an alarmist. There’s a huge gulf between recognising a (potential) problem and attributing every calamity known to man to that problem; thinking rationally about the issue and running around claiming the sky is falling in.
I looked at Gandy’s station’s web page, and found little other than what I consider propaganda. However, I did find this:
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/debates/copenhagen_article/8979
The link is to comments from “Chill” author Peter Taylor.
Unfortunately, some forecasters have succumbed to the Dark Side of The Force, they are no longer True Jedi. Such a one is here in River City. Can you imagine it, right here in River City?
I find it interesting that a study from a group that supports AGW found that only 27% of meteorologists believe in AGW. James Spann had a blog entry saying, when the ratings driven Weather Channel said any meteorologist that doesn’t believe in AGW should have their certification stripped, that meteorologists who believe in AGW are in the vast minority. I would trust James Spann before I would trust this study.
Pompous Git says:
Anthony, I have considerable difficulty imagining you as an alarmist…
You have to understand, it was 1990, alarmism didn’t mean frothing at the mouth,… and we were young.
“A test case at Gandy’s station will include 30-second segments in some of the weathercasts to educate viewers about climate change.”
=============
Testing what, besides possible station revenue.
BTW, the Field Museum in Chicago just opened a new exhibit titled “Climate Change”.
It was reported in the Chicago Sun-Times newspaper with a smaller article, which also referred to a much larger article in the commentary section calling the exhibit “bad science”, the commentary by Patrick J. Michaels of the Cato Institute.
Personally I think every weatherman on every channel should be converted to the dark side. That each and every one of them should preach global warming every chance they get…
…people would be so sick and tired of it, it would all be over in less than 6 months.
I spent some time perusing Gandy’s stuff. It was pretty amazing to me how much they deferred to the IPCC. If the IPCC said it, it’s truth incarnate. Who would have known? This is a statement about GCM’s. I must have not been paying attention when they were demonstrated to be correct.
“[C]onfidence in models comes from their physical basis, and their skill in representing observed climate and past climate changes. Models have proven to be extremely important tools for simulating and understanding climate, and there is considerable confidence that they are able to provide credible quantitative estimates of future climate change, particularly at larger scales. Models continue to have significant limitations, such as in their representation of clouds, which lead to uncertainties in the magnitude and timing, as well as regional details, of predicted climate change. Nevertheless, over several decades of model development, they have consistently provided a robust and unambiguous picture of significant climate warming in response to increasing greenhouse gases.”
I hope that someone can explain how this trail of statements leads to a conclusion that the earth is warming because of an increasing concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. (This came from an EPA document on Gandy’s site). This seems like raising confusion between correlation and causation to a high art.
What’s Known
Scientists know with virtual certainty that:
Human activities are changing the composition of Earth’s atmosphere. Increasing levels of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times are well-documented and understood.
The atmospheric buildup of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels.
An “unequivocal” warming trend of about 1.0 to 1.7°F occurred from 1906-2005. Warming occurred in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, and over the oceans (IPCC, 2007).
The major greenhouse gases emitted by human activities remain in the atmosphere for periods ranging from decades to centuries. It is therefore virtually certain that atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases will continue to rise over the next few decades.
Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations tend to warm the planet.
“In television, when it comes to weather, there is an extremely wide range of education sets,” said Jim Gandy, chief meteorologist at WLTX-TV in Columbia, S.C. “Some have bachelor’s degrees, master’s degrees, and Ph.D.’s, but you also have some without.”
This surprises me, somewhat. I had the impression that they were simply reading from a script, like the rest of the newsreaders.
Wade – The article said that 27% of weathermen believe that AGW is a scam . However , it also implied that a good number of them prefer not to venture an opinion .
Wade says:
June 26, 2010 at 3:01 pm
‘I find it interesting that a study from a group that supports AGW found that only 27% of meteorologists believe in AGW. James Spann had a blog entry saying, when the ratings driven Weather Channel said any meteorologist that doesn’t believe in AGW should have their certification stripped, that meteorologists who believe in AGW are in the vast minority. I would trust James Spann before I would trust this study. ‘
————————
In keeping with your incomprehensible comment, you totally misread the article in this posting. What the article says is that 27% of broadcast weather forecasters believe global warming is a scam. Fear of offending group-think and politically correct intimidation probably keeps an even larger contingent from saying what they truly think about global warming. Around two years ago one local broadcast meteorologist on a TV station I watch went from strongly endorsing the global warming scare to keeping silent — I figure he finally realized that the issue was a scam, and decided to shut up. Sometimes he made oblique comments about the variability of weather.
There is no believer like a convert.
==================
“I wish the public knew how difficult it is to have knowledge of climate science. Simply being a meteorologist is not enough, and this is a mistake that some television meteorologists make.” said Gandy.
It doesn’t take an Einstein to figure out we are being scammed. It does however help to have a science background to see exactly how the AGW scam works.
“If you’re not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you’re not a conservative at forty you have no brain.”
Winston Churchill
Well,,, here in the Cleveland area, Dick Goddard seemed to think that fuzzy caterpillars could predict the Winter’s weather! Nice guy though.
If you require a forecast from Meteorologists who know what is what, go here:
http://www.accuweather.com/index.asp?partner=accuweather&traveler=0
If you want an opinion, read the oracle, Joe Bastardi, he talks a lot of sense and he knows weather/climate/meteorology much like this guy on here……Mr. Watts.
PaulH says: This surprises me, somewhat. I had the impression that they were simply reading from a script, like the rest of the newsreaders.
Some do. I worked in TV and radio years ago and the weather men I knew probably couldn’t read a max/min thermometer.
“A test case at Gandy’s station will include 30-second segments in some of the weathercasts to educate viewers about climate change.”
Wow! 30 whole seconds!
Tom Jones says:
June 26, 2010 at 3:34 pm
Quoting Gandy:
‘Models continue to have significant limitations, such as in their representation of clouds, which lead to uncertainties in the magnitude and timing, as well as regional details, of predicted climate change.’
Pretty much useless then.
I thought the survey said over 60% did not think it was catastrophic,or a problem but 27% said it was an outright scam.
Thanks, Anthony! I have a great deal of respect for you & fellow weathermen/women, as you must deal with the “here and now,” working to make rapid analyses of life-threatening events as they move into the broadcast area.
We just had this activity in Chicago, with hurricane-level winds, small tornadoes very close to the metro area, wide-scale power loss & flooding etc. Jerry Taft of ABC (my personal favorite) and others were right there with the public. Climatologists? Not so much…
Climatologists deal with such long-term, big-scale theoretical stuff that they shoot themselves when they try to become weathermen, making short-term predictions (“The Arctic ice will melt this summer!!” etc.).
Maybe they outnumber the meteorologist community in terms of “pal reviewed” publications, but I wouldn’t want to trust my life with any of them.