– 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
tornadomark (21:19:53)
“Just to set the record straight: a large majority of TV “Weathercasters” are degreed Meteorologists”
Can you back that up, Mark? according to the New York Times, only about half have Meteorological degrees:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/30/science/earth/30warming.html?ref=science
I imagine the other half got their TV jobs because they looked good in front of a camera, and know about as much science as Paris Hilton. Take Mark Mathis for instance:
Being a ‘weathercaster’ clearly doesn’t qualify anyone as an authority on climate science.
REPLY: Neither does being Al Gore. – Anthony
I agree, but no-one’s suggesting that he is. For climate science we go to climate scientists, not politicians or TV weather forecasters.
Roger Knights (18:00:47) :
Icarus (16:10:22) :
“Being a ‘weathercaster’ clearly doesn’t qualify anyone as an authority on climate science.”
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.
Whether or not they’re persuaded has precisely zero significance as far as the science is concerned. Only a few decades ago, virtually no earth scientists believed that the continents move across the face of the Earth. Nevertheless, they move.
Amino Acids in Meteorites (18:28:10) :
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.
It’s not an opinion, it’s a fact. Weather is not climate.
My very unscientific opinion about about James Lovelock is that he is an intelligent loony. His comments about democracy being suspended during wartime is proof enough for me that he has rainbows in his head.
On the other hand, I am still wonderfully impressed that in writing ‘The Origins of Man’ Darwin laid out honestly and forthrightly what evidence was mising to prove his theory; I am equally awed that the missing proof (Pre-Cambrian fossils) were discovered in England in 1957.
A couple of typos above, but readers will sort it out – sorry!
tornadomark (21:19:53) :
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.
So how does being a meteorologist qualify someone as an authority on climate science?
Icarus (04:07:28) :
“So how does being a meteorologist qualify someone as an authority on climate science?”
Taking it one step further, what qualifies you to be an authority on who is an authority?
You should keep in mind that what brought Icarus crashing down to Earth was hubris.
************
Icarus (03:50:55) :
Being a ‘weathercaster’ clearly doesn’t qualify anyone as an authority on climate science.
REPLY: Neither does being Al Gore. – Anthony
I agree, but no one’s suggesting that he is. For climate science we go to climate scientists, not politicians or TV weather forecasters.
****************
Could you point out someone who has a degree in “climate science?” Jim Hansen doesn’t and neither does Michael Mann.
Jim (04:34:04) :
“Could you point out someone who has a degree in “climate science?”
Check here:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=climatologists
If that doesn’t work, try wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_climate_scientists
Keep in mind that a “climate scientist” would be a scientist who studies climate for a living. You know, I think Jim Hansen may actually fit the bill! (TV meteorologists manifestly do not, as they do not study climate, nor are most of them scientists.)
Glad to help.
From an OLD Weatherman –
“Humans are too stupid to prevent climate change from radically impacting on our lives over the coming decades. This is the stark conclusion of James Lovelock, the globally respected environmental thinker and independent scientist who developed the Gaia theory.”
And
“Lovelock says the events of the recent months have seen him warming to the efforts of the “good” climate sceptics: “What I like about sceptics is that in good science you need critics that make you think: ‘Crumbs, have I made a mistake here?’ If you don’t have that continuously, you really are up the creek. The good sceptics have done a good service, but some of the mad ones I think have not done anyone any favours. You need sceptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/mar/29/james-lovelock-climate-change
Henry chance (14:27:15)
‘Technology’ the name given to something that doesn’t work properly yet”
“Climate change” What is written on the cover of the textbook with blank pages.
Icarus:
So how does being a meteorologist qualify someone as an authority on climate science?
Michael E. Mann:
Dr. Michael E. Mann received his undergraduate degrees in Physics and Applied Math from the University of California at Berkeley, an M.S. degree in Physics from Yale University, and a Ph.D. in Geology & Geophysics from Yale University.
http://www.met.psu.edu/people/mem45
Gavin Schmidt:
He was educated at Corsham Comprehensive School, earned a BA (Hons) in Mathematics at Jesus College, Oxford University, and attained a PhD in Applied Mathematics at University College London.[4]
Tell me what qualifies the previous to comment on the climate?
On the other hand from http://www.ametsoc.org/amscert/index.html :
Being a ‘weathercaster’ clearly doesn’t qualify anyone as an authority on climate science.
The questions went to AMS/NWS certified people…not “weathercasters.” I hope professional certification means they at least have meteorological degrees.
After reading this article yesterday, I emailed a local leading senior meteorologist here in Atlanta, asking his opinion of the survey and AGW. Surprisingly, I received an answer back (352 words) in less than 3 hours. I told him I would be writing a comment here about his response but would not use his name since I didn’t have permission.
I was going to do partial quotes but I’ll just post the whole email edited a little bit for ID purposes.
“Hey Chris, was a little disappointed. I find it amazing that we who have been forecasting for a very long time (edit) and know about weather patterns and have seen changes based on the cycles of the oceans, the sun, and the natural cycles of the earth, are basically dismissed. Instead, we are relying on climatologists, who for the most part, are more concerned about slanting their findings in hopes of getting more grant money. A huge study was recently done on the accuracy of the weather stations around the country that feed data into the global climate models. It was determined that 87% of these reporting stations were not in compliance with NWS standards. We have the best in the world so can you imagine how accurate the data is coming in from the rest of the planet? Bad data in means bad data out. We see that a small error can magnify through our computer models just in a 24 hour period. In addition, there were no sunspots this past year. Most of Canada, the upper Midwest, and New England had no summer at all. Have you heard anything about that? So, the result with air that was already chilled, got even colder during the winter. Since 1995 there has been global cooling and not global warming. I certainly believe in climate change, as our climate has been changing since the beginning of time. As the climate warms, CO2 levels increase, but 100 or 200 years later! It should be the other way around but you won’t hear that from Al Gore. You no doubt heard about “Climategate” this past winter when some of the major scientists got nailed for falsifying global warming data. The bottom line in my opinion is that our climate will always continue to change and we should learn how to deal with it instead of trying to fight it. It just brings back memories of the 1970s and early 1980s when all the climate scientists were predicting another ice age. There was no disputing that fact. And of course, they were wrong….again!”
Wonder where he got that bit about reporting stations hmmm…
An important point as I responded back to him is that since he spends quite a bit of time in schools talking to children (and I still have one left in school), I was relieved to hear he presented a balanced viewpoint in the face of all the AGW propaganda that is so pervasive.
I also mailed the same question to the other local network meteorologists around here – waiting on them.
Icarus (03:50:55) :
For climate science we go to climate scientists, not politicians or TV weather forecasters.
Define “we” please. The media doesn’t limit itself in this fashion, and neither do politicians, community organizers, professors, or anyone other advocate of AGW.
Anyone who parrots the “settled science” gets a pass on the credibility of the entirety of their claim whatever it might be. In this vein, we get a constant stream of stories from the Mainstream Media in which we can’t have a warm day, a cold day, or and earthquake without it being an indicator of impending global catastrophe, and nary an eyelash is stirred from these defenders of science. Conversely, question any portion of the climate creed, and witness the bombastic speeches decrying the general public’s woeful lack of basic scientific precepts (complete with name-calling).
“Only 4% trust politicians on climate change information.”
Is there some reason why it is exactly the gays who trust politicians on AGW? 😉
**************
ac patriot (05:27:38) :
Jim (04:34:04) :
“Could you point out someone who has a degree in “climate science?”
Check here:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=climatologists
If that doesn’t work, try wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_climate_scientists
Keep in mind that a “climate scientist” would be a scientist who studies climate for a living. You know, I think Jim Hansen may actually fit the bill! (TV meteorologists manifestly do not, as they do not study climate, nor are most of them scientists.)
Glad to help.
*****************
Keep in mind that just because Jim Hansen gets paid to study climate does not in any way imply he is any good at it. In fact, his environmental zeal pretty much removes him from the arena of science. He is a shill.
Seems to be a lot of discourse about what qualifications are necessary to be a “Climate Scientist”.
A lot of people who think they are, are actually statistical mathematicians. Some are computer programmers. Still others study prehistoric pollens, or sea shells.
Heck, some are even Physicists or Chemists; what do they know about “Climate Science” ?
When I was in school (we called it University; college was a high school), I had a choice of four Science Degree courses (well in my fields of interest) I could get a mathematics degree, which required majors in both Pure and Applied Mathematics; I could do (pure)Physics, or Mathematical Physics; and there was even a degree in Radio-Physics, which involved electronics, Electromagnetic propagation theory; ionospheres and all that stuff. Or I could have done an EE degree if I wanted to become an engineer. There were of course other sciences like Chemistry and the various Biology and other disciplines; but I was interested in the Physics and Mathematics ones, which as I said were four different Majors.
So i did all four of them. Don’t think I ever heard or wrote the word “climate” during the whole experience.
The first 30 years of my subsequent Industrial career, were mostly in electronics, or Optics; or Opto-Electronics, including early LED technologies (material science etc). Don’t recall ever hearing or writing the word “Climate” during those years either; even when thinking about the ionosphere.
So I would guess, that I am not a “Climate Scientist”; or a meteorologist either; so to me, weather just happens and I can’t do anything about it.
None of my employers have ever complained that I don’t have any kind of EE background; but they have been happy to file EE patents with my name on them. Tektronix was happy to manufacture the first Horizontal Sweep Switching Oscilloscope (Type 547) using some circuits that I developed for that purpose; without any EE degree. I certainly did not invent the concept of sweep switching; but I did make the first workable circuits; after having designed some hilariously unworkable circuits to do that. But that does not lead naturally into getting involved in “Climatology”.
Maybe I’m a fraud ?
I didn’t say it did. My implication was that skepticism about alarmism is not due to ignorance of the warmist case, but to awareness; and further that “better communication of the science” will not raise the public’s consciousness in the direction of alarmism, as alarmists are hoping, but away from it.
Also, I don’t buy the idea that climatologists are scientifically trustworthy. It’s a jumped-up, immature field that has been disproportionately populated by environmental types who “want to make a difference”; whose leading institutions have been funded on the basis of the potential threat of AGW (hence, no threat = less funding); that has been swayed and shaped by social pressures not to rock the alarmist boat; that has been hijacked to some extent by sharp-elbowed, politically sophisticated activist types; that has used shoddy statistical techniques in much of its work; that has displayed a groupthink resistance to ordinary scientific give-and-take and correction of its errors (see the IPCC); that unsophisticatedly places unwonted reliance on computer modeling; etc., etc.
Therefore, the opinion of reasonably sophisticated laymen has relatively more weight vis-a-vis the experts than it would in some other scientific controversy. The experts can be badly wrong.