MIT Professor Kerry Emanuel bothered by on-air meteorologists' lack of climate science knowledge

I’d rather listen to Nurse Gladys Emanuel than Kerry Emanuel.

(only 302 views through midnight 08/24).
304 as of whenever Now here happens to be Then there.
Is the narrator’s Brit accent supposed to lend additional credibility?

I think its quite important to differentiate Climate Scientists from Meteorologists.
-Meteorologists understand that a 7 day prediction is iffy and a 50 year prediction is impossible
-Meteorologists probably wont be accused of hubris, lies, gaining research funding under false pretenses, perverting scientific research or advocating actions that would make your average dictatorship blanch
– Meteorologists have a reputation for common sense and assessment of information
So lets give our gratitude to Prof Emanuel for both making sure Meteorologists keep their credibility and proving himself the arrogant ******* that he is

and yet… and yet… it moves…
For key knowledge of Climate Science (the bits that matter, the uncertainty factors, the corruption of the raw data, etc etc), I don’t think Kerry Emanuel could hold a candle to our honourable host here.

re my last comment: … although I wait to be told by a Kiwi that it’s an NZ accent (which we Brits have equal difficulty distinguishing)

“co2fan says:
August 23, 2010 at 11:30 pm
Towards the end K. Emanual says:
“..we’ll figure out how to take carbon out of fossil fuels”
He really meant fossil fools. It’s a new term for oil chemophobes.

David Middleton… “I’m “bothered“ by “climate scientists” who don’t know enough about Quaternary geology to place today’s weather into the proper climatological context.”
Let’s put this debate into geological context then. This climate debate, and everything else we find important in our entire lives, will amount to no more than 1mm of bedrock in 50 million years time.
In other words, in 50 million years, the future geologists, of whatever species is dominant at that time, will only find evidence of our existence in 1 mm of bedrock. So that is ALL we are destined to become.
That is the climate debate in geological context.

For information only, youtube video counts frequently hang at about 300. It i snot an indication of the popularity or otherwise of the clip, merely a bug (or possibly a youtube policy). They usually click up on a daily basis after the first hang.

“Also featured is wrestler and full-time Accuweather soothsayer and forecaster Joe Bastardi who is a noted climate change skeptic.”
I really, really, really wish people wouldn’t write things like this. Each and every time this subject comes up the term should be noted AGW skeptic. We need to focus on the true topic of the skepticism, the theory of AGW, like a laser beam. The climate and the fact that it changes is not the subject of skepticism. In fact, it’s just the opposite. We’re not climate change skeptics, we’re climate stasis skeptics. Let’s call it what it is, and call it AGW skepticism. We’re giving away too much when we use “climate change skeptics” or the even more execrable “climate skeptics”. What does that even mean?

kcom says:
“it’s just the opposite. We’re not climate change skeptics, we’re climate stasis skeptics.”
Well said!
The climate sceptics are like the old school economists who thought that currencies could be pinned to the “gold standard” and that fundamentally currencies were static.
Global warming sceptics understand that long term climates and currencies change.

I trust Joe Bastardi at Accuweather for a Month by Month climate forcast before I’d trust a charlatan like Kerry Emanuel. For one thing I read a few of Joe’s monthly forcast last winter and they were spot on. Where as I watched Professor Emanuel strut around for the camera to try and make himself look smart. Sorry Professor Emanuel, I saw right through you and no matter how hard you try to discredited Joe, he is a lot smarter then you are and he proves it time and time again.
~Karen~

A lot of the “most prominent alarmist scientists” do not have a degree in climatology, e.g. Gavin Schmidt, Ph.D. Applied Mathematics, James Hansen, Ph.D. Physics, Joe Romm, Ph.D. Physics, John Holden, Ph.D. Theoretical Plasma Physics,
Michael Mann, Ph.D. Geology,Rajendra Pachauri, Ph.D. Industrial Engineering,
Richard C. J. Somerville, Ph.D. Meteorology, Stephan Rahmstorf, Ph.D. Oceanography, Steven Schneider, Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering and Plasma Physics
Susan Solomon, Ph.D. Chemistry. Their papers generally show very shallow understanding of the methods of paleoclimatology and the paleoclimatologic record. Dr. Hanson’s 2005 paper with Reudy and Sato in a prime example. There is also poor understanding of basic meterologic concepts like PDO, AMO and blocking highs etc. and the conditions that these have been associated with in the past. Conditions of the geologic past are literally rewritten to fit the theory. Dr. Kerry has said that “non-climate scientists” can’t begin to understand the climate models. For many well trained scientists this is probably true but we can sure look at the assumptions the models are based upon and frankly many of these assumptions are simply not supported by the scientific data. Also the people who really know models, like engineers, have expressed their dismay at the number of unknowns used in the models. What is striking about the climatology papers describing a modeling experiment is the number of “parameterizations” (another word for SWAG) that are considered real data and the unquestioned asumption that the effects of CO2 are amplified by water vapor, an assumption that has never been proven and to which there is massive evidence to the contrary. Dr. Kerry doesn’t seem to consider Paleoclimatologists and Meterologists like Tim Ball, Richard Lindzen, Reid Bryson, Julio Betancourt, Tsonis and Craig Loehle “real climatologists”? He seems to be saying that the definition of a “real climatologist” is someone who agrees with his myopic view.

So, does this mean Dr Kerry Emmanuel thinks that those CAGW stalwarts, the UK Met office should keep their nose out of climate pontification too?