This piece of obvious research from George Mason University stems from the fact that almost every TV met takes in the entire newscast before going on the air, and if there was a Climategate related story, they’d see it. Combine that with editors, reporters, and the public making the TV met the “go to guy” (or gal) for the hows and whys of the story (I can see them asking: what’s paleo proxy records about?) and it adds up to maximum exposure.
‘Climategate’ Undermined Belief in Global Warming among Many TV Meteorologists, Study Shows
FAIRFAX, Va.—A new paper by George Mason University researchers shows that ‘Climategate’—the unauthorized release in late 2009 of stolen e-mails between climate scientists in the U.S. and United Kingdom—undermined belief in global warming and possibly also trust in climate scientists among TV meteorologists in the United States, at least temporarily.
In the largest and most representative survey of television weathercasters to date, George Mason University’s Center for Climate Change Communication and Center for Social Science Research asked these meteorologists early in 2010, when news stories about the climate e-mails were breaking, several questions about their awareness of the issue, attention to the story and impact of the story on their beliefs about climate change. A large majority (82 percent) of the respondents indicated they had heard of Climategate, and nearly all followed the story at least “a little.”
Among the respondents who indicated that they had followed the story, 42 percent indicated the story made them somewhat or much more skeptical that global warming is occurring. These results stand in stark contrast to the findings of several independent investigations of the emails, conducted later, that concluded no scientific misconduct had occurred and nothing in the emails should cause doubts about the fact which show that global warming is occurring.
The results, which were published in the journal Bulletin of the American Meteorology Society, also showed that the doubts were most pronounced among politically conservative weathercasters and those who either do not believe in global warming or do not yet know. The study showed that age was not a factor nor was professional credentials, but men—independent of political ideology and belief in global warming—were more likely than their female counterparts to say that Climategate made them doubt that global warming was happening.
“Our study shows that TV weathercasters – like most people – are motivated consumers of information in that their beliefs influence what information they choose to see, how they evaluate information, and the conclusions they draw from it,” says Ed Maibach, one of the researchers. “Although subsequent investigations showed that the climate scientists had done nothing wrong, the allegation of wrongdoing undermined many weathercasters’ confidence in the conclusions of climate science, at least temporarily.”
The poll of weathercasters was conducted as part of a larger study funded by the National Science Foundation on American television meteorologists. Maibach and others are now working with a team of TV meteorologists to test what audience members learn when weathercasters make efforts to educate their viewers about the relationship between the changing global climate and local weather conditions.
Ultimately, the team hopes to answer key research questions about how to help television meteorologists nationwide become an effective source of informal science education about climate change.
“Most members of the public consider television weather reporters to be a trusted source of information about global warming—only scientists are viewed as more trustworthy,” says Maibach. “Our research here is based on the premise that weathercasters, if given the opportunity and resources, can become an important source of climate change education for a broad cross section of Americans.”
###
Media Contact: Tara Laskowski, tlaskows@gmu.edu 703-993-8815
This is depressing:
“Most members of the public consider television weather reporters to be a trusted source of information about global warming—only scientists are viewed as more trustworthy,” says Maibach. “Our research here is based on the premise that weathercasters, if given the opportunity and resources, can become an important source of climate change education for a broad cross section of Americans.”
I think I see where this is going.
I never new that the British police had found the culprit[s]. Was it stolen or leaked? ;O)
Ah, you poor, confused meteorologists! So sad that you were confused by initial revelations, and not comforted by the exhaustive reviews that later dismissed all such concerns.
Off to the Re-Ed Camps with you! Just step into one of those brown unmarked buses over there …
Fits the traditional definition of Sociology – an obscure and wordy explanation of the bleedin’ obvious!
“..Weathercasters…..can become an important source of climate change education…”
Sounds like another attempt to ‘re-educate’ us. All part of the concerted counter-attack after the battering they took over Climategate, I suppose.
“Although subsequent investigations showed that the climate scientists had done nothing wrong, the allegation of wrongdoing undermined many weathercasters’ confidence in the conclusions of climate science, at least temporarily.”
And in many cases, the obvious whitewash of those investigations further undermined their confidence?
“Ultimately, the team hopes to answer key research questions about how to help television meteorologists nationwide become an effective source of informal science education about climate change.”
Correction
“Ultimately, the team hopes to answer key research questions about how to help television meteorologists nationwide become an effective source of propaganda about climate change.” There, that’s better!
………says Ed Maibach, one of the researchers. “Although subsequent investigations showed that the climate scientists had done nothing wrong,……”
Really?
The last paragraph of the post contains the following statement by one of the researchers:-
“Our research here is based on the premise that weathercasters, if given the opportunity and resources, can become an important source of climate change education for a broad cross section of Americans.”
So George Mason University has nailed its colours firmly to the global warming mast!!
What I find annoying about this poll (and many similar ones) is that the poll asked about the respondents’ belief in whether global warming is occurring, rather than asking more meaningful and crisply defined questions such as the projections of IPCC et al. climatic models (both quantitative and qualitative), and the attribution to anthropogenic causes, CO2 emission in particular. But I suppose that any study which references Anderegg et al. is not likely to be interested in subtlety.
I find it entirely logical that Climategate would diminish one’s “confidence in the conclusions of climate science.” It doesn’t seem that they asked that quesion, though.
“…the unauthorized release in late 2009 of stolen e-mails between climate scientists in the U.S. and United Kingdom…”
There writes someone with an agenda.
This climate change communication group at George Mason is a notorious promoter of CAGW alarmism, they’ve been mentioned many times here at WUWT and at other blogs.
Like IPCC, their goal is not too promote and “communicate” climate science per se, but to bully the media into spouting CAGW propaganda.
Like all propagandists everywhere, they believe that their own fundamental solipsism is shared by other people and groups, when they state that “TV weathercasters – like most people … their beliefs influence what information they choose to see, how they evaluate information, and the conclusions they draw from it.” There’s an element of narcissism in that assertion as well, as there is in much of the CAGW alarmist religion.
Hence, according to this group, TV weathercasters, “most people,” and basically anyone other than the solons of truth at this propaganda department of GMU are responsive not to truth and hard scientific fact, but merely to “their beliefs.”
On their way to indoctrination they tripped over the truth, then calmly got up and carried on their merry way towards the glorious goal.
Unfortunately the BBC weather presenters still try at every opportunity to emphasise warm events. Plenty of coverage of high temperatures in Russia in summer, but not a peep anywhere – weather or news – about the tough time the US has been having or the ultra cold in Russia recently.
And despite quite a few colder than average days this year so far, yesterday’s forecaster managed to pop up a graph showing temperatures rising above the 9C average in the next few days. We managed a frigid December without such charts, why show one now?
the unauthorized release
How do they know it was unauthorized? I didn’t know that was determined.
…….at least temporarily……. at least temporarily…..
It doesn’t say why he thinks it’s temporary. I think it’s permanent. The Titanic doesn’t come back up.
-7.5F here in western NY this morning. Close to the record low of -9F set in 1963. Weather forecasters missed calling the overnight low by 10 degrees on the high side.
I hope you meant human caused global warming, because some global warming had occurred. The issue should be natural vs. human caused, and where was it heading.
What a hatchet job this writer does. He (she) cites the unauthorized use of stolen emails. That would imply the emails were already stolen while in the hands of EAU, which obviously isn’t the case. Whenever I read sloppy writing like that, my brain cringes (metaphorically).
Of course, it also shows bias on the part of the writer, since there is no evidence the emails were in fact stolen, with the more logical explanation being that they were leaked. In fact, the article quoted is rife with examples of bias. My blood pressure went up slightly as I read the piece.
The study also appears to be of the propaganda variety, since its aim is to to help television meteorologists nationwide become an effective source of informal science education about climate change. What drivel.
How many meteorologists really believed in AGW to begin with? A meteorologist’s income is not dependent on grant money; it is dependent on knowing the weather. My local meteorologist relies on computer models like the rest, but every once in a while he will speak about how the model isn’t accounting for something correctly. In other words, he uses the model to get an overview and his training and experience to get a forecast. If he just followed models blindly, he would be out of a job and fast. So really, how many meteorologists really believed in AGW?
Remember, also, the Weather Channel’s Heidi Cullem that said any meteorologist who doesn’t believe in AGW should have their AMS certification revoked. (As an aside, The Weather Channel is the absolute worst place to go for forecasts. They are a TV station and as such they depend on sensationalism for ratings. What is more sensationalist than an imminent disaster?) Soon after, James Spann, a meteorologist in Alabama, said this:
I noticed this story left out the sample size. How many meteorologists were interviewed? The first paragraph shows their motives from the beginning when they state the emails were “stolen” even though you cannot steal what is legally yours and even if you could, there is no evidence of malfeasance whatsoever. All they say is “largest to date”. Well, okay, tell us how large. Then at the end, they clearly state their motives. They want to “how to help television meteorologists nationwide become an effective source of informal science education about climate change.” Translation: re-education to fit our ideals.
The purpose of this study is clear. It is yet another attempt to convert the perpetrators of bad climate science exposed in climategate into victims. “Although subsequent investigations showed that the climate scientists had done nothing wrong …” All you need to know in that sentence.
Heh heh heh…
It’s more darkly amusing than merely figuring out what we already knew, because it fails to figure two other stand-out things we already knew:
“subsequent investigations showed that the climate scientists had done nothing wrong” is completely wide of the mark. The truth is that the subsequent investigations were deliberately scoped and staffed to “show” that the climate scientists had done nothing wrong.
“weathercasters, if given the opportunity and resources, can become an important source of climate change education for a broad cross section of Americans.” is also wide of the mark. They already have the opportunity and resources, and they already are an important source of climate change education. That is, unless the intention is to make them an important source of climate change propaganda, which is a fundamentally different aim.
Firstly the emails were not stolen, there is no evidence to support this and it shows the bias of the authors of the report. There have as yet been no INDEPENDENT investigations into climategate, the cover up whitewash series of ‘investigations’ staffed by insiders and stooges decided the conclusions before they ever sat down.
What the report suggests is the co opting and re education and indoctrination of weather forecasters as a new avenue of airing and spreading of CAGW propaganda. The obvious purpose is to find another avenue that is trusted and respected, the CAGW climate science avenues are by and large now trusted less than a double glazing salesman driving a beemer with a bumper sticker saying ‘one born every minute’.
Will this trick work as planned? Probably not! Weather forecasters reputations rest entirely on the accuracy or not of their work, they stand or fall on real genuine knowledge based scientific observations. If TV weathermen are conned onto inserting false assertions/false data/unsupported findings/scaremongering hogwash they will quickly be out of a job.
Its all very well for those with tenures/jobs for life/state parasites to incite weather forecasters to spread CAGW propaganda but it will not be the former who will lose their jobs and incomes and reputations. If any TV weather forecasters are stupid enough to fall for this kind of incitement to spread a fraud then they would most certainly deserve everything that would come their way. Look closely at the wording and you see the utterly desperate state of mind of the authors, these people are at the doors to the last chance saloon. They are finished and all it will take is for them to realise how ridiculous they truly have become. The paragraph below says it all really.
“Ultimately, the team hopes to answer key research questions about how to help television meteorologists nationwide become an effective source of informal science education about climate change.”
Informal they say but deniable they most certainly mean. Are these people so deranged they cannot see how transparent the real meaning behind those words actually is? The cynical exploitation of others to spread exaggerated and overblown and untrue propaganda that they themselves dare not spread themselves because they fear for their own reputations. That is the reality isnt it? They have squandered away their trust capital and now wish to exploit the trust capital of another group. Please snip- they are real scum.
Not only were they stolen, but after they were stolen their release was unauthorized!
“The study showed that age was not a factor nor was professional credentials, but men—independent of political ideology and belief in global warming—were more likely than their female counterparts to say that Climategate made them doubt that global warming was happening.”
(My emphasis)
Heh – there’s the solution: sack all male weather forecasters, employ only females!
I know that’s sexist – but the ‘researchers’ started it …
🙂
Not sure that the weathercasters picked up the story from listening to their own stations. The story was well covered by most media in Britain but nonexistent on American TV. One or two distorted stories on networks, none on local stations that I saw.
More likely they were picking it up on the web, from people like their former colleague Anthony!
So the results are in. Folks in Ivory Towers consider EVERYONE else to be stupid, easily swayed, and in need of being educated in “Ivory Tower” climate change beliefs. Makes me want to tear up all three of my college degrees.
“Our research here is based on the premise that weathercasters, if given the opportunity and resources, can become an important source of climate change education for a broad cross section of Americans.” (funded by the National Science Foundation)
Talk about the last S T U P I D S T R A W to break the stupid Taxpaying Camel’s overloaded back! What are we doing sitting here like a bunch of stupid idiots? Day in and Day out, year after year, stupid study after stupid study, no change just more idiotic waste of a VERY perishable resource (MY Money, YOUR Money, EVERYBODIES Money). Fellow Tea Drinkers, Coffee Drinkers, SodiePop Drinkers, AND Water Drinkers, it’s time to STOP the insanity of BIG Gobberment and cut the Federal budget to something less than $1T and payoff the national debt down to 10% of GDP. WE ARE LETTING THESE IDIOTS RUN THE NUTHOUSE AND WE ARE THE CASH-COW INMATES.
PS: Everyone in this country knows what their weatherman thinks BUT they needed a BIG BIG BIG Psyentific Study?
“weathercasters, if given the opportunity and resources, can become an important source of climate change education”
As if they don’t already get enough flak when the weather doesn’t quite turn out as planned. Now, they’ll have to take the blame for the climate too!
I guess we will have to see who sends us a check in the mail … George Soros or the Koch Brothers … before we decide. High 6 digits would do it for me
“Our study shows that TV weathercasters – like most people – are motivated consumers of information in that their beliefs influence what information they choose to see, how they evaluate information, and the conclusions they draw from it,” says Ed Maibach, one of the researchers. “Although subsequent investigations showed that the climate scientists had done nothing wrong, the allegation of wrongdoing undermined many weathercasters’ confidence in the conclusions of climate science, at least temporarily.”
Talk about motivated consumers of information. In one paragraph they display the exact flaw that they would attribute to “politically conservative” TV meteorologists.
You just can’t make this stuff up.
“…Says Ed Maibach, one of the researchers. “Although subsequent investigations showed that the climate scientists had done nothing wrong, the allegation of wrongdoing undermined many weathercasters’ confidence in the conclusions of climate science, at least temporarily.”
Yeah, George Mason University. Let’s ask how much of this research funding comes from government grants. In fact, let’s (this includes parents who send their kids there) ask how much the university contributes to political campaigns and how much they must raise their tuition in order to fund these “contributions”. I was shocked when I found that most universities do this (and how much they contributed to Obama’s campaign), how much of their tuition increases comes from government backing of student loans. Oh, my, are students leaving your university with home mortgage-sized loans. Oh, my, that’s ok; we give them such a marvelous product for future earnings. (The Financial Aid Officer at my university argued and argued about how unreal and unethical it was to keep raising tuition while also raising the amount students’ could go into debt.)
There are many more questions like this to ask, but they might become moot because we (the US govt) are out of money. Not only that but we (the people) are finally asking the relevant questions — teaparty questions. The higher education bubble is about to burst. (How much do all those upper administrators make and how cushy are their retirement packages?) So you continue on, George Mason University, in your propagandistic ways, and you might be one of the first to “go under”.
stan at 5:54 am: “Not only were they stolen, but after they were stolen their release was unauthorized!”
With personal knowledge as to the extreme aversion that many academics and research scientists have for computer security policies and measures of any kind whatsoever, and the general sloppiness and whimsy with which they protect, archive, and propagate communal data of all kinds, I’d say the word “stolen” is a bit over the top. It’s also demonstrably unproven.
As for “unauthorized,” well that’s probably true, and the reprehensible content of those emails demonstrates exactly why it was unauthorized. Any organization that conspires to destroy FOI data and raw scientific collections (i.e., Phil Jones) will probably not “authorize” the unveiling of that intention.
Who cares what some doofus media anchorite (sic) or Weatherthing fusses and grumbles about in any circumstances? Any disinterested observer of the Green Gang –Briffa, Hansen, Jones, Mann, Trenberth et al.– is perfectly capable of scrutinizing UEA’s brutally revelatory inner-workings, unquestionably not hacked but well-and-truly leaked by a sophisticated whistleblower. The idea that, of all people, agenda-driven TV hype-sters have any persuasive heft is typical Climate Cultist asininity, doubtless because that’s who they are themselves.
A vision critical poll released today shows that only 14% of Canadians believe that Global Warming is unproven. In England its 18% and 25% of Americans are non-believers.
Doubt went up for a short while, but has fallen back to previous levels.
They were never found to have done nothing wrong. The CRU illegally thwarted FOIA requests. Over and Over. That is a real crime.
Serious question: What did you expect exposing the fraud and lies would do?
What kind of poll asks about the undermining of belief in global warming? It is a trick question. Of course there has been global warming. A poll with a trick question is not a poll – it is a propaganda lever that is used to distort the outcome of the poll.
The struggle has never been about belief in global warming. The globe warmed. That is unquestioned. It is all to do with the cause and and appropriate response to global warming. It is all about believability of the reports and projections of dodgy data. It is all about validating reconstructions. It is all about believing the models (which are all wrong, btw). It is all about trusting the people who are collecting, processing, and reporting this data. It is all about trying to understand if 0.7ºC/100 years is an anomaly or part of a natural cycle.
My personal feeling is if the tree ring data falls apart during the instrumented era why the hell would anyone with a degree choose to use it as a proxy in the pre-instrumented era? It cannot be justified. As a tax payer I am owed an apology and a refund for this shoddy work.
Finally, the Climategate emails and documents should have caused people to rethink what we’ve been told about AGW. It turns out many of the participants in spinning that tale are shady characters with an obvious agenda. The Climategate papers did not remove global warming – they removed faith in the people whose lives were exposed to scrutiny in those papers. They are creeps. I would have no problem at all defunding the likes of Schmidt, Hansen, Jones, Briffa el al. I would also set them loose to follow other careers. Were I king Trenberth would be decertified and his parchment reclaimed and delivered to the land fill. I would not defund climate research, but it seems we’ve never gotten climate research despite our fawning government’s largesse to these people.
Another useless bit of research which starts from the pre concieved viewpoint that sceptics are wrong and the warming cult are right. Why don’t they refer to the fact that all the enquiries into the climate email scandal were conducted by members of the cult who did not investigate detailed content of the emails? Without building this fact into their research the report is quite useless and therefore another attempt to try and manipulate the thinking of those who will believe only what they read. George Mason University does not impress me if this is the quality of their output.
I’m shocked! Shocked I tells ya! I had no idea that “the doubts were most pronounced among politically conservative weathercasters and those who either do not believe in global warming…”
There are educated people walking amongst us who DON’T BELIEVE IN GLOBAL WARMING!!! Obviously, these same TV “weathercasters” must not believe in the Little Ice Age either because for the LIA to have ended mustn’t there have to have been some measure of “Global Warming”? – /sarc
I’m sick and tired of being spoken down-to but people who are obviously my intellectual inferiors.
We must listen to our Betters: ” there is no goddess but Gaea and Algore is her profit…”
John McManus,
Only climate alarmists mistakenly believe that global warming is unproven. Scientific skeptics know that natural climate variability explains both warming and cooling.
Get with the program, and stop trying to obfuscate the issue.
“Our research here is based on the premise that weathercasters, if given the opportunity and resources, can become an important source of climate change education for a broad cross section of Americans.”
Just like CO2 controls the climate, pick a false premise and push an agenda. This is not science. This was labeled ‘re-grooving’ by the Firesign Theater, for those who were deemed ‘not groovy’, 40+ years ago. See ‘Waiting for the Electrician or Someone Like Him’.
“… several independent investigations of the emails, conducted later, that concluded no scientific misconduct had occurred and nothing in the emails should cause doubts about the fact which show that global warming is occurring.”
Nice. The author obviously did well in his or her brainwashing 101 course.
Speaking of George Mason University, how’s that I’ll-drop-the-whole-thing-if-you-alter-the-Congressional-Record thing against Wegman going? From the sounds of this, I would certainly not like an employer like this defending me.
“Our study shows that TV weathercasters – like most people – are motivated consumers of information”
“Our research here is based on the premise that weathercasters, if given the opportunity and resources, can become an important source of climate change education for a broad cross section of Americans.”
=================================================
…and in the past 30 years, these motivated consumers of information were not given the opportunity and resources…….
How can a local TV meteorologist maintain his or her credibility with their viewers when they make unproven claims of the cause of the weather report and forecast.
Promoting climate change as a part of a weather forecast is like a writer giving personal opinion in a news story without informing the reader of the departure from news into an editorial. That is at least not professional and most not ethical.
Among the respondents who indicated that they had followed the story, 42 percent indicated the story made them somewhat or much more skeptical that global warming is occurring. These results stand in stark contrast to the findings of several independent investigations of the emails, conducted later, that concluded no scientific misconduct had occurred and nothing in the emails should cause doubts about the fact which show that global warming is occurring.
While this might be a fact, it glosses over that quality and real intent of these so called investigations.
IMHO The goal of this research was this:-
Ultimately, the team hopes to answer key research questions about how to help television meteorologists nationwide become an effective source of informal science education about climate change.
Did the MSM actually cover Climategate? I never saw it, nor did anybody I know. I actually learned about it from an M4GW You Tube video 3 weeks later (before I started reading this blog).
Garry says:
“As for “unauthorized,” well that’s probably true, and the reprehensible content of those emails demonstrates exactly why it was unauthorized. Any organization that conspires to destroy FOI data and raw scientific collections (i.e., Phil Jones) will probably not “authorize” the unveiling of that intention.”
I’ve often wondered about how unauthorized it was. I’m not a big fan of conspiracy theories but this set of shenanigans always seemed a bit too scripted. CRU was faced with the prospect of having to respond to FOI requests (sooner or later). After compiling requested e-mails into a FOI file someone may have looked at all of the e-mails and realized that releasing them via FOI would be devastating to the scientific credibility of CRU et al. (even more so than “leaking” them as “unauthorized” or “stolen”).
So the weird idea I keep getting is that to get out of responding to the FOI, CRU took a sub-set of the files and “leaked” them. This allows the press to use words like “stolen” and “unauthorized” and allows all of the follow up reviews to use similar words to cast doubt on their provenance.
Additionally, I believe that responses to the FOI requests were never fully supplied because of the “leak”. I may be wrong about this part, if I am someone please correct me. If this is the case, there may be more e-mails and information that have not been released.
Yes, this survey was agenda driven. The George Mason University unit is funded to promote Global Warming according to the IPCC Chapter and Verse. The survey was clearly an effort to develop a seemingly unbiased relationship with the TV weathercasters to open the door to the future educational feature material that they are distributing.
TV stations in the United States for the most part did not cover “climategate”. The local news Producers regarded it as an unimportant, foriegn science related boring internet incident that did not interest their viewers. Instead they made sure to keep their viewers informed about the latest reports about drug crazied rockers and the pronouncements of smooth, well known local political figures.
As employees of the News Departments within their TV stations, the weathercasters are expected to remain unbiased but if they occassionally support the well institutionalized Algorian view of global warming it will be accepted by their Producers and News Managers. Any skeptical pronouncements would be grounds for an cautionary note from management.
However, in this day of cutbacks within news operations, if a well produced piece of Global Warming scare material packaged as a news report comes in, many Producers would use it to fill some air time.
As an old man who can retire at anytime and because of my appeal to viewers gives me some considerable standing in my my station, I am able to occassionally stray outside of the box. I got a couple of brief climategate news reports on the station where I work and I am able to present an occassional global warming skeptical report. And, I am able to stop or balance global warming scare pieces when they come along from CNN (We are an affilliate) or some other source. But, I am truly a major exception. Ninty-nine percent of TV weathercasters have to keep their opinions under wraps and say nothing and walk a totally noncommitted walk.
Because the owners of the TV station where I work are a local man and his family (one of only few such stations in the county) and the owners support my global warming skeptical position, I was able to do two skeptical hour long global warming specials. They are still available for viewing on line. No other TV weathercaster in the county has had such an opportunity. And, none will.
I have just finished producing a new thirty minute skeptical video presenation on global warming. As best I can tell, it will not be put on TV locally, but it will soon be posted on my webpage on the station’s website and hopefully linked and have some impact, but I don’t expect any other TV people to pick it up.
George Mason will have some impact in coming months; but nothing that will tip the scales. TV weathercasters will have little impact in the global warming debate; their world is too restricted. Lindsey Lohan will get far more coverage on local news that global warming pro or con. That is the sad state of TV news.
The smugness and arrogance of the all knowing AGW elitists never ceases to amaze me.
Don’t worry, at least some owls still believe in global warming:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_9401000/9401733.stm
John Coleman says: February 23, 2011 at 9:48 am
[Yes, this survey was agenda driven. The George Mason University unit is funded to promote Global Warming according to the IPCC Chapter and Verse.—- TV stations in the United States for the most part did not cover “climategate”. The local news Producers regarded it as an unimportant——Instead they made sure to keep their viewers informed about the latest reports —the pronouncements of smooth, well known local political figures. —Any skeptical pronouncements would be grounds for an cautionary note from management.— George Mason will have some impact in coming months; but nothing that will tip the scales. TV weathercasters will have little impact in the global warming debate; their world is too restricted. Lindsey Lohan will get far more coverage on local news that global warming pro or con. That is the sad state of TV news.]
——————————————————————————-
I think that this is the reality as summarised by John Coleman here. And the MSM is driven by the bottom line of the balance sheet.
Douglas
David Finfrock – are you reading this?
In my opinion, this blog note , along with the original constitute more than the usual give and take about climate change.
Anthony, the two articles should be viewed side by side to be carefully read.
The funding by the NSF to George Mason should also be looked at in terms of:
a. First Amendment issue
The goverment is efforting the manipulation of “on air” reporting.
b. Scale
Has NSF funded other similar media research for the purposes of influencing
public opinion channels?
Anthony, you may need a new category…. “Legal or Illegal”
Original Post [below]
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/15/tv-weathercaster-re-education-proposed-by-nsf-and-gmu/#more-31756
TV weathercaster re-education proposed by NSF and GMU
Posted on January 15, 2011 by Anthony Watts
The study showed that age was not a factor nor was professional credentials, but men—independent of political ideology and belief in global warming—were more likely than their female counterparts to say that Climategate made them doubt that global warming was happening.
Just more incidental proof that woman are less critical thinkers than men. Why is that?
Also, this article is extremely biased and ignores obvious questions.
I would not trust any climate scientists or TV meteorologists there are all on the gravy train it is going to come back and bite them in a big way when the truth on global warming found out to be a scam
Nimrods who WEREN’T affected in this way by Climategate are the phenoms worthy of study. How can any honest person accept the pals-investigating-pals investigations as having done anything but deepen the distrust.
Probably, people who get that climate information from newspapers and blogs were more effected by the climategate reporting. On the other hand, people who get that information by reading and evaluating the scientific literature were not effected by the climategate news. Hardly seems likely that many meteorologists read scientific studies about climate.
Hang on, isn’t George Mason the ‘home’ of Wegman whom Bradley has fulminated about so intemperately?
How is that going?
And who can diagnose GM’s apparently split personality?
BillD says:
February 23, 2011 at 1:29 pm
On the other hand, people who get that information by reading and evaluating the scientific literature were not effected by the climategate news
========================================
Bill, is that saying that people that read the scientific literature already thought it was a scam, and still do?
Oh, the Koch funded George Mason University finds…
what they are paid to find.
Wow, that’s remarkable. 🙂
REPLY: Koch also funds the NOVA TV science series on PBS, does that mean the program is bad science then? – Anthony
BillD;
Your post effected a strong response in me, since your observation and implication was that TV-only news watching matched uncritical thinking, which I agree with. But I was negatively affected by your malaprop. I’m so tired of loose use of English that I sometimes lose it. Then again, there are other issues more important than that. It’s at its worst in the blogosphere, which makes it a problem for compulsive surfers like me, though. I try to toe a line of politeness, and not get towed under too often.
Please study the above. Carefully. >:(
;p
😉
The abstract is here:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2010BAMS3094.1
Multivariate analysis showed that political ideology, belief in global warming, and gender each predicted a negative impact of the story, but certifications from professional associations did not. Furthermore, respondents who followed the story reported less trust in climate scientists (2.8 versus 3.2; p < 0.01), and in the IPCC (2.2 versus 2.7; p < 0.01), than those who had not. We conclude that, at least temporarily, Climategate has likely impeded efforts to encourage some weathercasters to embrace the role of climate change educator. These results also suggest that many TV weathercasters responded to Climategate more through the lens of political ideology than through the lens of meteorology.
So once again opinions on global warming are related to political ideology.
REPLY: Correct, that’s how it started and continues to be pushed worldwide. It’s a political movement. Otherwise there would not be so many attempts at taxes attached to it. – Anthony
REPLY: Correct, that’s how it started and continues to be pushed worldwide. It’s a political movement. Otherwise there would not be so many attempts at taxes attached to it. – Anthony
The science behind the theory of AGW did not originate out of politics.
Was Arrhenius a Democrat, a Republican? How do you know. He actually thought that CO2 emissions would be beneficial for agriculture.
How about Callendar, Keeling, Plass, Schneider and Manabe? Where is the evidence that politics drove the development of the physics? Here is a history of global warming. Is there any indication it that politics played a role in the development of the scientific theory?
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/simple.htm
After the science was developed and the conclusions were presented, in the 1980’s right wing political think tanks pushed the opposition to the scientific theories, because of the implications that increased government regulation was needed. Libertarian think tanks, opposed to regulation of anything, including emissions causing acid rain, and second hand smoke, started to oppose the science behind AGW.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt
REPLY: No I was referring to Jim Hansen’s speech before Congress in 1988, where they had to perform “stagecraft” by making the room hot so people would sweat. That started off the issue in modern times, and it was borne of politics and theater.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/15/getting-steamed-about-global-warming-not-coming-to-a-theatre-near-you/
That’s what really got everybody’s attention. It even motivated me before I figured out this was all overhyped.
AGW is a scientific turned political issue, there’s no getting around it.
– Anthony
REPLY: No I was referring to Jim Hansen’s speech before Congress in 1988, where they had to perform “stagecraft” by making the room hot so people would sweat. That started off the issue in modern times, and it was borne of politics and theater.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/15/getting-steamed-about-global-warming-not-coming-to-a-theatre-near-you/
That’s what really got everybody’s attention. It even motivated me before I figured out this was all overhyped.
AGW is a scientific turned political issue, there’s no getting around it.
– Anthony
What I objected to was the statement,
“REPLY: Correct, that’s how it started and continues to be pushed worldwide. It’s a political movement. Otherwise there would not be so many attempts at taxes attached to it. – Anthony”
Global warming theory was the result of 120 years of scientific research. It didn’t become politically charged until some people realized that it would involve government regulation. Senator Tim Wirth’s stagecraft, and Hansen’s advocacy doesn’t mean that politics drove the scientific theory. It is just an ordinary example of politics and salesmanship in an effort to create governmental action on the basis of the science that has been developed. The right wing think tanks had been attacking the science because they opposed the implications of the regulation. One example was the advice of Nierenburg, who told GHW Bush that global warming was driven by the sun.
http://www.scienceprogress.org/2010/08/distorting-science-while-invoking-science-2/
During the 1988 election, candidate George H. W. Bush had promised to address climate change—pledging to meet the “greenhouse effect with the White House effect.” But soon after Bush took office, Nierenberg presented a briefing to the White House staff that claimed global warming was caused by the sun, not greenhouse gases, and that as solar irradiance declined during the 1990s, the Earth would begin to cool.
Despite a complete lack of evidence that the sun actually had increased in brightness during the previous few decades, Nierenberg’s briefing was taken seriously. One White House staffer commented on the written report that accompanied it, “Everyone has read it.” And it strengthened a faction within the White House, led by Chief of Staff John Sununu, which opposed environmental regulation.
REPLY: ScienceProgress, like ClimateProgress is a political spin source, so by citing it, you prove my point. AGW is now a political issue, and there’s really no getting around that. It’s now become all about taxation. Witness Australia. – Anthony
Taphonomic at 9:43 am: “I’ve often wondered about how unauthorized it was. I’m not a big fan of conspiracy theories but this set of shenanigans always seemed a bit too scripted.”
I concur, and in my comment I said “probably” unauthorized for somewhat the same line of thinking as your own. From what little I read of the Climategate collection (admittedly not a lot), the damning precision of the emails and files says something other than “unauthorized.”
It is preposterous to think that the archive is a random selection from 12+ years of email.
My recollection was that AGW became a political dogma rather than one of a number of scientific theories when Enron, Lehman Brothers, et al, saw fortunes to be made from carbon trading.
PS. Meteorologists, as people with related scientific knowledge and training, are more likely to smell something rotten from the climategate emails than watermelons, econuts and kids with “Environmental Studies” qualifications.
Coldfinger says:
February 24, 2011 at 5:52 pm
My recollection was that AGW became a political dogma rather than one of a number of scientific theories when Enron, Lehman Brothers, et al, saw fortunes to be made from carbon trading.
PS. Meteorologists, as people with related scientific knowledge and training, are more likely to smell something rotten from the climategate emails than watermelons, econuts and kids with “Environmental Studies” qualifications.
Some of the difference may be related to a kind of professional rivalry and cultural gap. Climatology is the study of longer term phenomena driving climate, and meteorology focuses on the day to day, month to month prediction and is less concerned with the long term forcing factors.
http://www.weather.com/blog/weather/8_7877.html