– Only 4% trust politicians on climate change information.
In January and February 2010, using a web-based method, we surveyed all broadcast TV members of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) and the National Weather Association (NWA) using member email lists provided by the two professional associations. All participants were offered $30 to complete the approximately 20-minute survey. Of the 1,408 names and email addresses provided by AMS and NWA, 35 people were ineligible because we determined that they no longer worked as TV meteorologists, and 44 email addresses proved to be incorrect (and despite an active search, correct email addresses could not be located).
Therefore, the valid initial denominator of our sample was 1,373. Fifty-nine of these people refused to participate, 743 did not respond, and 571 completed at least some portion of the survey, yielding a minimum response rate of 41.6% (which assumes that all non-respondents were eligible to participate).
…
Selected excerpts:
Summary of Findings and Interpretation
This study was the largest and most representative survey of television weathercasters conducted to date. The on-line survey of broadcast television members of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) and National Weather Association (NWA) was intended to be a census of the nation’s TV weathercasters. A total of 571 respondents completed at least some portion of the survey, a minimum response rate of 42%, and an adjusted response rate of 52%.
While consultant research on TV weather and weathercasters abounds, most of that research is proprietary and often the weathercasters themselves don’t know the results of that research. Our top-line findings are being distributed directly to survey respondents and their professional associations, and additional detailed analyses are being prepared for submission to peer-reviewed journals and conferences.
Our findings confirm that TV weathercasters play – or can play – an important role as informal science educators. Nearly all of our respondents (94%) said they work at stations that do not have anyone else covering science or environmental issues full-time. This number verifies other research showing that only about 10% of TV stations have a dedicated specialist to cover these topics. By default, and in many cases by choice, science stories become the domain of the only scientifically trained person in the newsroom—weathercasters.
Two-thirds of our respondents report on science issues once per month or more frequently and one-third would like to report on science issues more frequently. Topics they cover range from astronomy to zoology, and many weathercasters have become the point person for expertise on plate tectonics in local TV newsrooms on the recent earthquakes in Haiti and Chile.
TV weathercasters embrace the idea of expanding their role beyond forecasting to becoming “station scientists,” a proposal advanced by the AMS to make the weathercasters the “go to” person in a TV newsroom on a variety of science topics. Four out of five of our respondents (79%) indicated they were comfortable serving in this role and only 9% indicated they weren’t. In many cases this means weathercasters will need to seek out more resources and training in order to cover issues outside their own specialty of meteorology.
Climate change is already one of the most common science topics TV weathercasters discuss. Nearly all of our respondents (87%) had in some way discussed climate change as part of their duties. The most common venue in which they discuss climate change is in community speaking
events (87%), which is also the venue they say is the most appropriate place for them to do so (82%). The second most common way weathercasters discuss the topic is in anchor “chit-chat” (49%), usually going into or out of the on-air weather segment.
Often a news producer stacks another weather related story before or after the weather forecast and this is a place weathercasters can face climate change questions or comments from an anchor. Only about a third of weathercasters say they discuss climate change during the on-air weathercast (37%), or in reporter packages (33%), the most important reason being lack of time (79% and 75%, respectively). Only about two-thirds felt that it is appropriate to discuss climate change on-air (62%), and approximately three-quarters felt it appropriate on-line (72%), as many report a concern about audience “backlash.” Many weathercasters also use other avenues to discuss climate change including the news station’s blog (31%) and station’s web site (28%), on the radio (29%), in personal blogs (25%), and in newspaper columns (14%).
…
Weathercasters hold a wide range of beliefs about global warming.
Survey participants responded to a variety of questions assessing their beliefs in and attitudes about “global warming,” questions that have been used previously in our public opinion research.2 More than half of our respondent (54%) indicated that global warming is happening, 25% indicated it isn’t, and 21% say they don’t know yet. About one-third (31%) reported that global warming is caused mostly by human activities, while almost two-thirds (63%) reported it is caused mostly by natural changes in
the environment. Half indicated that they have thought “a lot” about global warming, and a large majority said they are fairly or very well informed about the causes of global warming (93%), the consequences of global warming (89%), and the ways to reduce global warming (86%)—numbers that are much higher than public responses to the same questions. Over half of weathercasters indicated that humans could reduce global warming (58%), and that the U.S. should reduce greenhouse gas emissions regardless of what other countries do (63%). Almost half (47%) felt they needed some or a lot more information before forming a firm opinion about global warming, and almost one-third (30%) said they could easily change their mind about global warming.
Just over one quarter (27%) agreed with the statement by a prominent TV weathercaster: “global warming is a scam.”
…
Only one third of TV weathercasters believe that there is a scientific consensus on climate change.
Despite the strong scientific consensus among climate scientists, almost two-thirds (61%) of TV weathercasters think there is a lot of disagreement among scientists about whether or not global warming is happening. Perhaps partly as a result, 79% of our respondents indicated that coverage of climate change science must reflect a “balance” of viewpoints just as coverage of political or social issues are covered. Prior research conducted by others, however, has shown that “balanced” news coverage about climate change is misleading in that it tends to give audience members the false impression that there is a lot of disagreement among scientists about whether or not global warming is happening.
Weathercasters express varying degrees of trust in sources of climate change information.
Overall the most trusted sources of climate change information are state climatologists (85%), the NWA (83%), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Weather Service (82%), peer-reviewed journals (80%), the AMS (79%) and climate scientists (73%).
The least trusted climate sources were politicians (4%), religious leaders (11%), mainstream news media (18%), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (44%), and other TV weathercasters (53%).
Full report here as PDF file: TV_Meteorologists_Survey_Findings_(March_2010)
h/t to Mark Johnson
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
29 March: Senators form bipartisan climate bill
By Kevin Sieff in Washington
The bill’s sponsors – John Kerry, the Massachusetts Democrat, Joseph Lieberman, the Independent from Connecticut, and Lindsay Graham, the South Carolina Republican – said the new sectoral approach would begin imposing carbon caps on utilities in 2012 and manufacturers in 2016.
The bill includes a new petrol tax, which would be passed on to consumers, though this could be vulnerable in the efforts to reach a compromise..
Mr Graham, distinguishing his legislation from last year’s bill, told reporters this month “the cap-and-trade bills in the House and Senate are dead” and would be replaced.
He hopes his sector-by-sector approach to regulation, unlike Waxman-Markey’s economy-wide cap, will help him save face among conservatives. His role in the bill’s formulation was itself in doubt after he said the Democrats’ handling of healthcare reform “poisoned the well” for bipartisan co-operation…
Meanwhile some environmentalists said the bill would curb the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a28df5a6-3b71-11df-b622-00144feabdc0.html
“latitude (14:14:29) :
““Despite the strong scientific consensus among climate scientists, almost two-thirds (61%) of TV weathercasters think there is a lot of disagreement among scientists about whether or not global warming is happening.””
This reads wrong, on purpose.
Says two-thirds of weathercasters are stupid.”
Notice that the sentence talks about the consensus among CLIMATE scientists (who are paid to deliver material for the IPCC whose express purpose it is to analyze antropogenic climate change) versus disagreement among SCIENTISTS (whose majority is paid to do what a scientist does).
A weather forecaster/meteorologist is in a position to observe and follow closely regional weather over the course of years. That 2/3 of them cannot see any evidence of global warming does not surprise me. The overall progression is either neutral or towards a colder climate. It takes time to change over from a decidedly warming era to one where it is obviously the opposite.
I see no effort to differentiate between the concepts “human caused global warming” and “natural global warming”, so we don’t have any way to interpret this.
My son and I did an experiment a few years ago and kept the five day forcast out of the newspaper fo a two month period from May through June and NOT ONCE in two months was the five day out forcast right on the money on the fifth day…nope not once?!? So who said this is sience, more like chaos theory and unpredictability…Yet we trust them to tell us about…well…the global climate…or as the study says…
“In many cases this means weathercasters will need to seek out more resources and training in order to cover issues outside their own specialty of meteorology”
I’m honestly looking forward to this read but though the skim revealed wonderful response stats the results didn’t appear to signal a chi. Frequency is always fun but rarely as insightful as a chi.
One of the best questions I ever asked in a market research study was “how do you define your neighborhood?”
Congrats on the study response and the potential analysis.
Al Gored (13:38:56) :
“This is the stark conclusion of James Lovelock, the globally respected environmental thinker and independent scientist who developed the Gaia theory…
I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while.”
This is really alarming and is a green light to those who might think an end justifies the means. From this statement my opinion is he is not a great thinker. The allies in the WWII were still functioning democracies even with war time restrictions. The exception would be Soviet Russia, but they simply threw people at the invaders, or shot them if they turned back. Hitler’s rule over his military ensured defeat and with a hideous loss of life. It was the allies ability to organise and harness what were essentially volunteers that increased the odds of winning.
I have not put this well but Mr Lovelock is wrong, very wrong.
Being a ‘weathercaster’ clearly doesn’t qualify anyone as an authority on climate science.
REPLY: Neither does being Al Gore. – Anthony
“how do you define your neighborhood?” : )
Really struck a chord, over 20 years ago only 1 response from a 20 page research study that received 70% response from a 25% sampling of an 80,000 population in the “heartland” stated “my neighborhood is the world”.
Sadly, the response 20 years ago indicated a character who was attempting to alter the study yet it would be interesting to ask the same question today.
It’s really a disgrace that the AGW’ers haven’t realized long before now that trying to bully the meteorologists instead of woo them to their side is a losing proposition. These people (the weather guys) have a far more immediate and longterm trust relationship with the public than the climatologists will ever have.
“”” bikermailman (14:11:10) :
George E. Smith (13:52:07) :
Are you Walter Williams in disguise? He speaks like that… :p I say this lovingly, love both hearing and reading him. “””
Well it takes quite a man to get stuff to rub off on this crusty old codger; and Walter E. (to differentiate him from that “other” one) is one such; as is his erstwhile mentor Thomas Sowell.
This old codger picks up smarts wherever it is available from wise men.
NYT References Anthony Watts and Joe Bastardi etc. in discussing these results:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/30/science/earth/30warming.html?hp
The idea that the TV weatherman should be the “station scientist” is a bit scary – especially if the general public is looking to that person as an authority figure on the subject. Could be generally detrimental & further erode credibility as poorly researched science info is dispersed. That being said, I am sure they would do a better job than the non-scientifically trained reporter. All those stories should start with the disclaimer , ” We have absolutely no idea what we are talking about, so take it for what it’s worth”.
Let’s say they aren’t. Let’s say they’re just a sample of the non-expert but well-spoken population. They say they’ve studied the AGW issue. The fact that they’re often unpersuaded implies that the warmists’ case doesn’t gain strength in the public mind upon deeper acquaintance.
We have five television meteorologists (All University of Oklahoma). I’m a member of both the AMS and the NWA. I was never contacted about any such survey. Since I’ve been called outspoken (and a few other things), they probably know where I stand.
Gary England, Director of Meteorology, KWTV
Icarus (16:10:22) :
Being a ‘weathercaster’ clearly doesn’t qualify anyone as an authority on climate science.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Your opinion doesn’t qualify as an authority.
So since polling of the general population shows that most aren’t concerned about global warming and since this poll shows most that understand climate and weather don’t think it’s mamnade that would mean the Weather Channel can change its song on global warming.
So no more looks of gloom and doom from Jim Cantore, right?
Icarus (16:10:22) :
Being a ‘weathercaster’ clearly doesn’t qualify anyone as an authority on climate science.
And, significantly more important … being a climate scientist “clearly doesn’t qualify anyone as an authority on” statistics. However, that has not stopped them from abusing this field over and over again. Maybe you should be more concerned with the statistical nonsense in peer reviewed journals rather than a simple survey.
Phillep Harding — I see no effort to differentiate between the concepts “human caused global warming” and “natural global warming”, so we don’t have any way to interpret this.
Yes. Poll bias makes the answers almost undecipherable. Written records show us the Hudson used to freeze. No longer. Obviously it’s warmer, and no serious adult would say otherwise. The only question is the claim of it being (solely!) anthropogenic. The poll is biased so as to make it appear to imbeciles that weather forecasters are in need of re-education and not to be listened to. (This has Heidi Cullen all over it.)
And for your entertainment, just in time —
Graham Dawson — So the implied authority of these people is likely just not there at all, and the results would therefore be reflective of public opinion much more than of scientific credibility.
Same argument, variation #456, of the theme where WUWT gets mentioned somewhere and some know-it-all will invariably use the putdown of “oh, that Watts guy, he’s just a weatherman.”
Hook. Line. Sinker.
It may have something to do with the fact that meteorologists work with model output day-in/day-out. They’ve often found out “the hard way” (“10 inches of partly cloudy”) that models are are crude approximations of reality, and are *NOT* perfect. To get the same exposure to reality as a meteorologist gets in a year of 5-day forecasts, a climatologist would need to spend several centuries watching individual 5-decade climate forecasts. Our lifespan isn’t that long, so the validity of climate models is almost as difficult to refute as a religion.
Just putting this into the wider context of real world problems and my grocery shopping list, whenever I see a story, no matter its slant, that reports on any survey, I’m immediately reminded of Family Feud with host Richard Dawson yelling out, “survey said…”
Icarus (16:10:22) :
“Being a ‘weathercaster’ clearly doesn’t qualify anyone as an authority on climate science.”
Just to set the record straight: a large majority of TV “Weathercasters” are degreed Meteorologists (or have the equivalent college credits). The idea that these folks are just weather bunnies reading what someone else tells them is just plain wrong.
My TV weather person can’t even get the 12 hour forecast right…I should take them as an authority on the subject?
On weather forecasters:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/30/science/earth/30warming.html?ref=todayspaper
Graham Dawson (14:24:45) :
So how many of these “weatherpersons” actually have university training in meteorology or climatology, or for that matter any other earth sciences?
How many those so called earth scientists and climatologists have qualifications in any of the real sciences?