From Alabamawx.com by Bill Murray
A survey of weathercasters’ feelings on global warming was published in this month’s edition of the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. It had some interesting findings. There were 121 respondents. 94% of the respondents had at least one of the three major seals.
Television meteorologists are the official scientists for most television stations. The overwhelming majority felt comfortable in that role for their stations. The majority agreed that the role of discussing climate change did fall to them.
The eyebrow raising responses:
“Respond to this IPCC conclusion: “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal.” Only 35% agreed or strongly agreed. 34% disagreed or strongly disagreed.
“Most of the warming since 1950 is likely human induced.” A full 50% disagreed or strongly disagreed. 25% were neutral on this question. Only 8% strongly agreed.
“Global climate models are reliable in their predictions for a warming of the planet.” Only 3% strongly agreed and another 16% agreed. A full 62% disagreed or strongly disagreed.
“Respond to one TV weathercaster’s Quote saying “Global warming is a scam.” Responses were mixed. The largest percentage was neutral, at 26%. A total of 45% disagreed (23%) or strongly disagreed (22%). 19% of the respondents agreed with this statement and 10% strongly agreed.
The amount of uncertainty found in this survey tells that even the most educated and motivated communicators are still uncertain about the truth on this issue. Interesting article.
The entire text can be found at: http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0477/90/10/pdf/i1520-0477-90-10-1457.pdf
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
An interesting pattern.
For the ‘data-related’ positions, #2 & 3, experience speaks. What weatherman hasn’t had his predictions ‘laughed at’; caution and modesty go hand in hand.
For the ‘political’ positions: #1 & 4 the responses are more polarized. Here, IMO is the reflection of their regional ‘markets’ and the current ‘debate climate’.
As it’s been shown over and over again, having the ‘wrong’ opinion could cost you your job.
“Respond to this IPCC conclusion: “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal.” Only 35% agreed or strongly agreed. 34% disagreed or strongly disagreed.
I believe that the figure of 35% should be 45%.
In Australia most of our weather presenters are young, blond and attractive. Either that or they are comedians. They would be amazed to be called ‘the stations official scientists’ although years ago this was different when our ABC had David Ellyard explain rather than present weather.
The response to question 17 was telling, but how much of this uncertainty is made public?
“Respond to this IPCC conclusion: “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal.” Only 35% agreed or strongly agreed. 34% disagreed or strongly disagreed.”
I think it says 45% agreed or strongly agreed (28+17).
Interesting results. I note the great faith that was placed in the models by the weathercasters, which I found somewhat bemusing.
I had a look at the climate site that was supposed to purport a neutral stance in the debate and watched the video on ice core drilling in Greenland (PBS) to study the Eemian period. Most of the presentation was very even-handed, but one bloke just couldn’t resist taking the correlation between geological timescale CO2 concentrations and temperature to mean that the correlation backed up the AGW argument…
Repeat after me correlation =/= causation … ommmmm oommmmm … I feel better now.
On the one hand it is discouraging 34% disagreed with “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal.” That is not disputable and I wonder what that 34% were thinking. And 29% said global warming is a scam, which it clearly is not (entirely). So that group of ~30% wasn’t very objective.
However, there was clearly a large group which acknowledged warming and that global warming is not a ‘scam’ but still were skeptical of climate predictions. This is the part that was telling to me. Only 19% agreed that climate models are reliable. And only 24% agreed most of the warming since 1950 is very likely human induced. There’s clearly a large objective pool that acknowledge warming, and acknowledge global warming is not a complete scam and probably that CO2 is a GHG, but are still skeptical of AGW theory and predictions.
To echo Keith Minto (18:35:13):
Channel 7 weather presenter:
http://www.australian-media.com.au/news/13100/natalia-cooper-to-replace-jeff-newman/
CHannel 9 weather presenter:
http://www.9perth.com.au/Nine-News/Angela-Tsun.aspx
What is not clear is the degree of education of the respondents.
I have generally found the TV meteorologists will full degrees in meteorology to be the most skeptical of the IPCC’s contentions.
Those with lesser training tend to be more impressed with the IPCC.
Of course, there are exceptions in both directions.
“Respond to this IPCC conclusion: “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal.” Only 35% agreed or strongly agreed. 34% disagreed or strongly disagreed.
I think that is 45% and 24% respectively.
“Most of the warming since 1950 is likely human induced.” A full 50% disagreed or strongly disagreed.25% were neutral. Only 8% strongly agreed.
For consistency add the 16% agreed to make 24%
AL Gore is suppposed to be in Portland Or. Tomorrow.Might be interesting to follow the
Weather. This article gives me hope that not all have drank the Kool-Aid..
Andrew P (18:51:12) :
On the one hand it is discouraging 34% disagreed with “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal.” That is not disputable and I wonder what that 34% were thinking.
Perhaps they were thinking about the recent years of non-warming.
Or perhaps they were aware of the condition of the weather sites.
Or perhaps they were aware of GISS positive adjustment factors, or their ignoring of UHI.
I don’t want to hear about their ‘feelings’. I want to know what they think, assuming they do.
In point of fact, it doesn’t really matter what these meteorologists think (or feel) about ‘climate change’, or even what the public thinks (or feels). The Powers That Be don’t give a rat’s behind about public opinion, and even less about the empirical facts.
My wife keeps saying, “Someone has to tell them that it’s false; there isn’t any problem!” But the world’s elites (in government, the UN, NGOs, the big banks, the universities, and major corporations like Shell and GE) don’t care. They have an agenda, which the Goracle let slip: it’s called ‘Global Governance’. ‘Climate change’ (née ‘Global Warming’) is just the excuse.
So long as they are convinced that perpetuating an imaginary crisis called ‘Climate Change’ will help them achieve their political and financial goals, it doesn’t matter whether the crisis has any basis in scientific fact.
Maybe if enough ‘skeptical’ scientists can sway the public to the point where elected politicians refuse to go along, for fear of losing their seats, then there may be some hope. But this is a rearguard battle. The elites have the high ground and are running rampant.
What the public needs are champions: in politics, sciences, and even the arts, who will stand up and challenge the elites on their own turf.
/Mr Lynn
In how many ways can I say WOW!
“Most of the warming since 1950 is likely human induced.” A full 50% disagreed or strongly disagreed. 25% were neutral on this question. Only 8% strongly agreed.
This line is enough to end the whole global warming farrago! —at least for the average person. Steven Schneider, James Hansen, and Al Gore, et al, may never quit. BUT WHO CARES!
A few years ago I lost all trust in TV weather people. I wrote to tell the station weather presenter the visuals they used showed 12:00 A.M. and 12:00 P.M. and with respect to time these two things were undefined, and they should figure out which was which and use NOON and MIDNIGHT. I got back a none-too-polite note telling me TV meteorologists had decided otherwise. The person did not explain how they decided – maybe they used one of these scaled questions.
I have found that with scientists in my field that their degree of skepticism (at least vocally) is directly proportional to their politics. What’s really frustrating are the ones who know the science is crap but follow the political line anyway.
Keith Minto (18:35:13) :
What ever happened to Rob Gell in Melbourne?
I seriously don’t know who this result should surprise. It’s been clear to me for at least three years now that the meteorologists are a major bulwark of *informed and trained* skepticism on this issue.
Surely Anthony would give this one a “Duh!”?
Anthony,
I just want to know what a person has to do to get a hat tip 🙂 I guess it’s always possible that everytime I send you something someone else beats me to it, but that seems unlikely. What’s a guy go to do to get a h/t? LOL
[too much of an example of Godwin’s Law ~ ctm]
“The wide range of opinion on the IPCC conclusions. . . says to me that we need to explain more on how they reached those conclusions; what is the evidence that backs them up, and what is the level of confidence?”
“Perhaps because this group works so closely with weather models, which are much more volatile and less reliable than longer-term climate models, they project that same unreliability onto one of the areas all climate models agree on: warming of the planet.”
These are just two of the statements that really ticked me off. The first implies that the reason these meteorologists don’t agree with the IPCC conclusions is because the IPCC just hasn’t explained the science very well. On the contrary, the science is explained well enough. It is just amazingly lame and insufficient. The second statement implies that the meteorologists are inappropriately applying a bias to the climate models because of the failures of forecasting models. Isn’t it more likely that the failure of the climate models to show any accuracy at all is the reason for the lack of confidence?
I disagree with the IPCC. I am not stupid. I am not uniformed. I have studied the evidence and the arguments and found them more than questionable. The inability of the IPCC to recognize the natural influences of the oceans on historical global climate is simply scientific malfeasance.
Mr. Wilson’s conclusion: “Future research should evaluate the efficacy of these various outreach efforts to determine which produce the best outcomes, including a best-practice series that showcases examples of TV weathercasters successfully communicating to their audiences the science of climate change.”
What are the “best outcomes”? What defines “successfully communicating”? The implication is that total adherence to the AGW orthodoxy is the only acceptable outcome; the only successful communication.
George Orwell continues to prove his forecasting expertise far beyond the ability of climate scientists.
This survey reveals that I am not alone, not that I am uneducated.
I found the comment about climate modeling to be interesting/humorous:
“Since model-based prediction is a crucial compo nent of climate science, three questions addressing their use followed (Table 4). Almost two-thirds of this sample disagreed that “global climate models are reliable in their projections for a warming of the planet” (Q. 20), with n = 3.65 indicating how strongly this group rejects this basic premise of general circu lation models. Perhaps because this group works so closely with weather models, which are much more volatile and less reliable than longer-term climate models, they project that same unreliability onto one of the areas all climate models agree on: warming of the planet.”
So the author (mistakenly) must believe that climate models are more “reliable” than short term forecast models? Maybe he doesn’t realize that they are solving essentially the same equations, except the climate models have many more non-linear, coupled parameterizations, questionable assumptions, poorly known boundary conditions, “fixers”, filters, and unphysical numerical devices to keep the equations from diverging over long temporal integration periods. Perhaps he can show us all evidence of this “reliability”…
The more disturbing theme of this article, however, is the notion that since meteorologists haven’t universally drunk the AGW koolaid, some “reeducation” is necessary so that they too can go out to their TV audiences with the AMS approved global warming propaganda…
OT but any one who wants to write to Australian politicians about the climate, Copenhagen treaty etc their email addresses are linked here for ease,
http://www.stevefielding.com.au/forums/viewthread/466/
Jeff L (18:35:13)
Don’t know Rob Gell, but here is his web site.
http://www.robgell.com/
Frank, my thoughts exactly…
“Although both the IPCC synthesis and the AMS Statement on Climate Change note the human fingerprint, half of this sample disagreed with the consensus that “most of the warming since 1950 is very likely human-induced.” Just one-quarter of the sample agreed (16%) or strongly agreed (8%) with the statement. Clearly, many on-air meteorologists continue to question climate science. Lesson plans that address how scientists are attributing climate change to anthropogenic causes may help address those concerns.”
Translation – the propaganda is not working, prepare for reeducation!
I could not believe I was reading that.
This is like throwing atomic bombs at the AMS position statement, which was clearly reached by the handful of council members and not the organizations members.