Journeyman Pictures has created a little 10-minute documentary that describes the perceived disconnect between the beliefs of on-air meteorologists and climatologists. Of specific note are the comments of MIT professor Dr. Kerry Emanuel who sets up the premise of the question (and the documentary as a whole) and swings away (just after 5-minute mark):
PROFESSOR KERRY EMANUEL, CLIMATE SCIENTIST: Why would anybody ask weather forecasters about their opinion on climate? I think it is because there is a hope that I don’t think is justified that ordinary people will confuse weather forecasters with climate scientists.
Narrator: Professor Kerry Emanuel is disparaging about what he perceives to be a lack of knowledge amongst many meteorologists.
PROFESSOR KERRY EMANUEL: Weather forecasters are in a unique position. I mean if they actually did study the problem, if they actually took the time to really understand it rather than just go to the blogosphere to get their favourite views and rebroadcast them, then I think they could do a lot of good in the world and I think there are some who are doing that to be fair.
Also featured is wrestler and full-time Accuweather soothsayer and forecaster Joe Bastardi who is a noted climate change skeptic. Regardless, if you are reading this, you are not doing yourself or the world any good coming to the blogosphere and learning about climate. Move along.
Embedding disabled by the makers of the documentary (only 302 views through midnight 08/24). Here’s the Youtube link.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
jthomas says:
August 24, 2010 at 8:10 am
“You can’t refute the science, but you think anyone who agrees with you actually has all the qualifications needed to have equal time.”
jthomas, please show us the “science”. I have yet to see any scientific proof of AGW Please don’t point me to the IPCC reports – those only propose a hypothesis with no proof.
If you really have scientific proof (not just anecdotal “evidence”), then please share it with us. Sincerely. Do share.
Henry chance wrote:
“Emmanuel [sic] is clueless. He is in a library and surrounded by books. The climate is outdoors. His double chin shows he is sitting in a chair a lot.”
Dop you actually think you made an intelliegent statement? Do you actually know anything about Emanuel?
In fact, it is your type of thinking that IS the problem.
[ryanm: Kerry can handle the criticism of the blogosphere that he so abhors. No one in their right mind should question his academic bonafides, yet his political analysis and advocacy is fair game, especially on this blog. Recall that Heidi Cullen suggested that broadcast meteorologists should be stripped of their AMS seals because they are not towing the alarmist climate change line 100%. Marginalizing all meteorologists as ignorant of climate change is the same as discounting all climate scientists’ knowledge of weather as lacking…]
The difference between a weatherman and a climate scientist is that the weatherman knows that his forecast will face the acid test in a couple of days. The climate scientist knows that his forecasts / scenarios will only face the acid test numbered in years and they have the comfort of pushing back those years on a yearly basis. :o)
REPLY: “the weatherman knows that his forecast will face the acid test in a couple of days. ” Couple of days? Think hours. You’ve obviously never been on the receiving end of a newsroom telephone when a evening convective thunderstorm pops up out of nowhere. – Anthony
As a follow up just look at James Hansen’s predictions made in 1988 concerning co2 and temperature: FAIL. Yet he still persists in predicting the same things today!!!
On the last page of a Boston Globe article noted here on WUWT, Lindzen said about Kerry:
He began to see questionable motivations in Emanuel’s transformation into a scientist outspoken about the possible dangers from global warming.
Emanuel “would tell me that he really felt that it would be a mistake not to take advantage of the issue . . . there is funding . . . it could benefit the department,’’ Lindzen said in an interview. “I always took a more moralistic view. There has to be a foundation.’’
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/16/kerry-emanuel-and-richard-lindzen-the-climatic-odd-couple/
The “removal of carbon” from hydrocarbon molecules (strangely) results in the liberation of all energy in its bonds with hydrogen. 🙂 I perform this miracle every day with my car.
Jthomas, the thing that sticks in my mind the most is the reluctance of the AGW religious believers to share data and methods. Why does it take FOI requests for the tax paying public to get a hold of the “science” that policy will be based upon and the tax payer will be ask to fund the resulting policy? It does not take a PHD scientist to know something doesn’t smell right. The belief in CO2 catastrophic global warming appears to me to be a faith based exercise and any who dare question it are labeled as deniers as if we deny the Holocaust. This is not science, this a scam to remove money from the pockets of tax payers.
I mean if they actually did study the problem, if they actually took the time to really understand it rather than just go to the blogosphere to get their favourite views and rebroadcast them, then I think they could do a lot of good in the world and I think there are some who are doing that to be fair.
I guess that is the reason, isn’t it?
They actually did study the problem, hence the skepticism
Emanuel and his ilk need to get over themselves. Their “consensus theory,” based on GIGO-corrupted climate models, has been discredited six ways to Sunday. Yet they cling desperately to the global warming mythology, too proud to face the facts. Blinded by hubris, they attack the truth and the truth-tellers. They have morphed into a climate-change inquisitors, denouncing unbelievers for daring to challenge AGW scripture.
Latitude wrote:
“You should not assume that “actual climate scientists” do not review and post here.
You just made the same fatal mistake that you are accusing others of doing.
And the same snotty elitist mistake that Dr. Emanuel made.”
Actual climate scientists know that meteorologists are not climate scientists. Emanuel knows that as well. He made no such “elitist comment”; that strawman is fully transparent.
And if you read the comments above, you know that Emanuel is being attacked “politically”, not for his actual qualifications, while “meteorologists” are being promoted for their politics, not their qualifications – and lack thereof.
It’s time to stop the political nonsense.
[ryanm: Climate scientists have made a (sub)conscious decision to advocate their results in political forums, on television, and yes, even in the blogosphere. It is naive to assert that the issue is NOT political — just because Gore says it is a “moral issue” and not a political issue. It’s all of the above. There are many components and angles to the so-called debate. Asking free people to stop talking about something regardless of their motive sounds a lot like censoring.]
So, from now on, what they pretend is to disqualify all meteorologists.
We all should know that the greatest scientists, the majority of great men who really made real breakthroughs in human development were not only ungraduates but drop outs and mostly laymen, as Thomas Alva Edison,etc,etc.
Most of the time a diploma becomes really a cartoon and its owners a joke.
As we say in spanish: “Lo que Natura non da Salamanca non presta” (What nature does not give Salamanca-University-does not lend” Entiende?
Emanuel’s statements are the result of his profession being politically bashed and materially harmed. Emanuel – and responsibly so – has every right if not obligation to expose charlatanism both as a scientist and a citizen.
I’m sure those who attack him would prefer that climate scientists “sit back and take it.” How dare they speak up!
My own assessment of Emanuel was pretty much fixed by this set of videos from the Boston Globe by him and Richard Lindzen about why we should or should not worry about GW
http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2010/05/16/global_warming_debate_makes_climate_tough_on_friends/
Emanuel’s presentation is on the whole fairly reasonable, but between 1:25 and 1:55 he weighs in with the only real threat he can provide for a consequence of GW. It’s Algore’s favorite, that Greenland could melt and raise sea levels 20 feet. Yes Kerry, if Greenland’s ice cap melted entirely MSL would likely rise 20 feet, but even the IPCC donkeys admit it would take a millenium or three to transpire and anyone still peddling that alarmist bilge is the ultimate glass house occupant when it comes to challenging the credibility of anybody else’s scientific bona fides.
jthomas says:
August 24, 2010 at 9:34 am
===========================
What profession?
BBQ summer
Children won’t know what snow is
and on and on
You mean that profession?
“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”
These people have higher degrees in solid subjects, probably from reputable institutions. They should have a sound understanding of science and scientific method, and the brains to see their way through bullshit. What went wrong?
We here in State College, PA are awaiting the Bastardi – Mann showdown. Accuweather and Penn State are in the same town. Joel Myers, also a PSU grad, is the founder of Accuweather.
http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20100403/NEWS02/704039879
“Dop [sic] you actually think you made an intelliegent [sic] statement?”
Let’s analyze his statement and see.
“(statement of conclusion)”,”The climate is outdoors””(personal observation)”
Scientific Method:
Define the question: Is there AGW.
Form hypothesis: AGW exists
Perform experiment and collect data <–(The climate is outdoors)
Analyze data: "Use model data to fit real world, and correlate."
Iterate: "Failure of model to correlate exactly means return to experiment step."
Publish results: "Done, done, done and done. And overdone. And done some more."
Duplicate:
"The climate is outdoors" is a remarkable perspective incarnating the concept that data must be constantly edited, audited with the concept that any predictive model of the data which fails to fit new data is invalid. It can be seen once you separate the wheat from the chaff.
The root of the post, and argument, is that because "weather" and "climate" are different, those learned of the "weather" should not comment on works of those learned of "climate."
To substantiate this argument, first, some ability or skill must be present in a student of climate. So far, I have seen no "climatologist" that moves beyond the practical knowledge of the schools upon which he touches (glaciology, oceanography, marine biology, etc) in any area except that of prediction of future behaviour. Other than such predictions, climatologists seem more like Microsoft Excel jockeys. Without attributability and transparency of the skill of said predictions, there is no skill or ability inherent to the climatologist which is not present in persons of other disciplines: Thus it is unreasonable to give them a gestalt bestowment of "expertise." The argument then of one expertise vs. another expertise is moot.
Climate science, as a whole, should not proceed boldy under the impression that the gestalt conclusion is correct and the method is incapable of measuring it correctly (yet.) This is not science, it is systematic support of bias which is wholly unscientific.
I would profer for reading the following:
Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact by Ludwik Fleck
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn.
http://www.anthro.psu.edu/weiss_lab/CQ09_FleckAndTheArtOfFact.pdf
coldfinger says:
“These people have higher degrees in solid subjects, probably from reputable institutions. They should have a sound understanding of science and scientific method, and the brains to see their way through bullshit. What went wrong?”
They were corrupted by money and fame. And they like the results. So they continue to do what they think will get them more money and fame.
If they simply wanted scientific truth, they would follow the scientific method.
History check:
jthomas
In just ten years from now, everybody will know who was Anthony Watts and WUWT.
Could you affirm the same about you?
An architect who knows his job does not build a palace on a sand pit, and the mathematician is a fool who spends his college years diddling with a math better done on computers, when he doesn’t understand algebra or geometry.
http://milesmathis.com/pre.html
jthomas says:
August 24, 2010 at 9:34 am
Emanuel’s statements are the result of his profession being politically bashed and materially harmed. Emanuel – and responsibly so – has every right if not obligation to expose charlatanism both as a scientist and a citizen.
I’m sure those who attack him would prefer that climate scientists “sit back and take it.” How dare they speak up!
==========================================
Then by all means, let’s expose some charlatanism here.
Dr. Emanuel wants to censor the media/blogosphere, and does not want people going there for information. He obviously does not want his work or the work of other “climate scientists” critiqued on the internet, and wants control over who says what and the message.
You compare him to Anthony, who posts everything on the internet, for any and everyone to critique, including you. Anthony obviously does not control the message, here you are.
You complain about “qualifications” and “credentials”, yet people with those things make outlandish and wrong predictions all the time.
Then here you come along complaining again because of basically “freedom of the press”. You sound like our president, wanting to control the internet and trying to tell people to not read what they don’t want you to read.
People like you and Dr. Emanuel should take less time trying to control the message, and more time trying to come up with a message that made sense. Obviously you wouldn’t still be having this “communication” problem after a 1/2 century if you did that.
Media meteorologists do the best they can with the data they’re provided. I think they know better than anyone just how wrong models can be.
For example, today in the Denver area, during the past 24 hours or so, the high temp was predicted to be 68, 77, 73, and now 80 degrees F, from a low of around 52. Right now (noon), we’ve made it all the way to 60. If they can’t get it right within 24 hours, why are we supposed to believe the long-term models from the so-called climate scientists? Yesterday was forecast to be 85 but was never more than 77 because the thunderstorms rolled in early.
Of course, the same meteorologists reported the high on Sat like it was the end of the world, it was 96 or so, “Could break the record high”, “several degrees shy of the record high”. There was no corresponding panic over the 66 degree temps we had in July. I can tell you though, 96 is NOT an usual temp for August in Denver.
Like many others in academic ivory towers, these so-called climate scientists need to get out in the real world. The real world where cold kills far more people, animals, and plants than heat does. Scientists time would be better spent helping people adapt to extreme temperature change. We’re fortunate here to have heating and air conditioning, most people on the planet don’t. Even Europe sees far more deaths from extreme temperature than we do in the US. The best way to help people adapt is to develop low cost energy sources, i.e. carbon products like coal and oil.
jthomas says:
August 24, 2010 at 8:10 am
The sad fact is that the subject has nothing to do with actual climate science but with politics.
The Alarmists have politicized climate science from the beginning. Emanuel is a perfect example of this. To his way of “thinking”, anyone who disagrees with him, or with the “consensus” is simply ignorant, and needs to get “educated”. That is a political position, not a scientific one.
As far as Emanuel’s “30+ years work as a scientist” goes, that is immaterial. The question is, does his scientific work hold up under scrutiny, or is he simply following along with status quo? In the final analysis, one’s qualifications, whatever they may be are a red herring. It is the science that matters.
It’s uncanny how closely your statement equates to the same kinds of accusations coming from the convicted felons in the jail and penitentiaries. Blame your victims and claim their victimhood is not a particularly good strategy for you and Kerry Emmanuel to be using in a confrontation with the scientists, engineers, and other people you hold in contempt for not simply believing in whatever you order them to believe and accept as the revealed truth.
Prof Freeman Dyson on scientists who don’t get out into the real world, and who start believing their climate models, which…
It would have been nice if MIT Professor Kerry Emanuel had actually said anything of scientific merit in the above video. As it was he’s just talking politics and recoiling at the grounded world views of others who don’t believe in the professor’s climate models. The best argument he seems to have been able to muster is that there is some sort of “consensus” among his peers who use soothsaying climate models to predict doomsday with about the same results as Nostradamus still gets. Not impressed Professor Kerry Emanuel, not impressed at all. How about some actual science rather than politics of doom?
Overall I’d say that Joe Bastardi comes through looking mighty good and grounded in the objective reality of Nature when it comes to science of predicting the weather and climate, and funny to boot! “Enjoy your weather, after all it’s the only weather you’ve got!” Love it!
At least Joe has the humility to admit it when his predictions aren’t on target. I’d be amazed if any of the hard core wayward climate scientist ever did that.