This piece of obvious research from George Mason University stems from the fact that almost every TV met takes in the entire newscast before going on the air, and if there was a Climategate related story, they’d see it. Combine that with editors, reporters, and the public making the TV met the “go to guy” (or gal) for the hows and whys of the story (I can see them asking: what’s paleo proxy records about?) and it adds up to maximum exposure.
‘Climategate’ Undermined Belief in Global Warming among Many TV Meteorologists, Study Shows
FAIRFAX, Va.—A new paper by George Mason University researchers shows that ‘Climategate’—the unauthorized release in late 2009 of stolen e-mails between climate scientists in the U.S. and United Kingdom—undermined belief in global warming and possibly also trust in climate scientists among TV meteorologists in the United States, at least temporarily.
In the largest and most representative survey of television weathercasters to date, George Mason University’s Center for Climate Change Communication and Center for Social Science Research asked these meteorologists early in 2010, when news stories about the climate e-mails were breaking, several questions about their awareness of the issue, attention to the story and impact of the story on their beliefs about climate change. A large majority (82 percent) of the respondents indicated they had heard of Climategate, and nearly all followed the story at least “a little.”
Among the respondents who indicated that they had followed the story, 42 percent indicated the story made them somewhat or much more skeptical that global warming is occurring. These results stand in stark contrast to the findings of several independent investigations of the emails, conducted later, that concluded no scientific misconduct had occurred and nothing in the emails should cause doubts about the fact which show that global warming is occurring.
The results, which were published in the journal Bulletin of the American Meteorology Society, also showed that the doubts were most pronounced among politically conservative weathercasters and those who either do not believe in global warming or do not yet know. The study showed that age was not a factor nor was professional credentials, but men—independent of political ideology and belief in global warming—were more likely than their female counterparts to say that Climategate made them doubt that global warming was happening.
“Our study shows that TV weathercasters – like most people – are motivated consumers of information in that their beliefs influence what information they choose to see, how they evaluate information, and the conclusions they draw from it,” says Ed Maibach, one of the researchers. “Although subsequent investigations showed that the climate scientists had done nothing wrong, the allegation of wrongdoing undermined many weathercasters’ confidence in the conclusions of climate science, at least temporarily.”
The poll of weathercasters was conducted as part of a larger study funded by the National Science Foundation on American television meteorologists. Maibach and others are now working with a team of TV meteorologists to test what audience members learn when weathercasters make efforts to educate their viewers about the relationship between the changing global climate and local weather conditions.
Ultimately, the team hopes to answer key research questions about how to help television meteorologists nationwide become an effective source of informal science education about climate change.
“Most members of the public consider television weather reporters to be a trusted source of information about global warming—only scientists are viewed as more trustworthy,” says Maibach. “Our research here is based on the premise that weathercasters, if given the opportunity and resources, can become an important source of climate change education for a broad cross section of Americans.”
###
Media Contact: Tara Laskowski, tlaskows@gmu.edu 703-993-8815
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
This is depressing:
“Most members of the public consider television weather reporters to be a trusted source of information about global warming—only scientists are viewed as more trustworthy,” says Maibach. “Our research here is based on the premise that weathercasters, if given the opportunity and resources, can become an important source of climate change education for a broad cross section of Americans.”
I think I see where this is going.
I never new that the British police had found the culprit[s]. Was it stolen or leaked? ;O)
Ah, you poor, confused meteorologists! So sad that you were confused by initial revelations, and not comforted by the exhaustive reviews that later dismissed all such concerns.
Off to the Re-Ed Camps with you! Just step into one of those brown unmarked buses over there …
Fits the traditional definition of Sociology – an obscure and wordy explanation of the bleedin’ obvious!
“..Weathercasters…..can become an important source of climate change education…”
Sounds like another attempt to ‘re-educate’ us. All part of the concerted counter-attack after the battering they took over Climategate, I suppose.
“Although subsequent investigations showed that the climate scientists had done nothing wrong, the allegation of wrongdoing undermined many weathercasters’ confidence in the conclusions of climate science, at least temporarily.”
And in many cases, the obvious whitewash of those investigations further undermined their confidence?
“Ultimately, the team hopes to answer key research questions about how to help television meteorologists nationwide become an effective source of informal science education about climate change.”
Correction
“Ultimately, the team hopes to answer key research questions about how to help television meteorologists nationwide become an effective source of propaganda about climate change.” There, that’s better!
………says Ed Maibach, one of the researchers. “Although subsequent investigations showed that the climate scientists had done nothing wrong,……”
Really?
The last paragraph of the post contains the following statement by one of the researchers:-
“Our research here is based on the premise that weathercasters, if given the opportunity and resources, can become an important source of climate change education for a broad cross section of Americans.”
So George Mason University has nailed its colours firmly to the global warming mast!!
What I find annoying about this poll (and many similar ones) is that the poll asked about the respondents’ belief in whether global warming is occurring, rather than asking more meaningful and crisply defined questions such as the projections of IPCC et al. climatic models (both quantitative and qualitative), and the attribution to anthropogenic causes, CO2 emission in particular. But I suppose that any study which references Anderegg et al. is not likely to be interested in subtlety.
I find it entirely logical that Climategate would diminish one’s “confidence in the conclusions of climate science.” It doesn’t seem that they asked that quesion, though.
“…the unauthorized release in late 2009 of stolen e-mails between climate scientists in the U.S. and United Kingdom…”
There writes someone with an agenda.
This climate change communication group at George Mason is a notorious promoter of CAGW alarmism, they’ve been mentioned many times here at WUWT and at other blogs.
Like IPCC, their goal is not too promote and “communicate” climate science per se, but to bully the media into spouting CAGW propaganda.
Like all propagandists everywhere, they believe that their own fundamental solipsism is shared by other people and groups, when they state that “TV weathercasters – like most people … their beliefs influence what information they choose to see, how they evaluate information, and the conclusions they draw from it.” There’s an element of narcissism in that assertion as well, as there is in much of the CAGW alarmist religion.
Hence, according to this group, TV weathercasters, “most people,” and basically anyone other than the solons of truth at this propaganda department of GMU are responsive not to truth and hard scientific fact, but merely to “their beliefs.”
On their way to indoctrination they tripped over the truth, then calmly got up and carried on their merry way towards the glorious goal.
Unfortunately the BBC weather presenters still try at every opportunity to emphasise warm events. Plenty of coverage of high temperatures in Russia in summer, but not a peep anywhere – weather or news – about the tough time the US has been having or the ultra cold in Russia recently.
And despite quite a few colder than average days this year so far, yesterday’s forecaster managed to pop up a graph showing temperatures rising above the 9C average in the next few days. We managed a frigid December without such charts, why show one now?
the unauthorized release
How do they know it was unauthorized? I didn’t know that was determined.
…….at least temporarily……. at least temporarily…..
It doesn’t say why he thinks it’s temporary. I think it’s permanent. The Titanic doesn’t come back up.
-7.5F here in western NY this morning. Close to the record low of -9F set in 1963. Weather forecasters missed calling the overnight low by 10 degrees on the high side.
I hope you meant human caused global warming, because some global warming had occurred. The issue should be natural vs. human caused, and where was it heading.
What a hatchet job this writer does. He (she) cites the unauthorized use of stolen emails. That would imply the emails were already stolen while in the hands of EAU, which obviously isn’t the case. Whenever I read sloppy writing like that, my brain cringes (metaphorically).
Of course, it also shows bias on the part of the writer, since there is no evidence the emails were in fact stolen, with the more logical explanation being that they were leaked. In fact, the article quoted is rife with examples of bias. My blood pressure went up slightly as I read the piece.
The study also appears to be of the propaganda variety, since its aim is to to help television meteorologists nationwide become an effective source of informal science education about climate change. What drivel.
How many meteorologists really believed in AGW to begin with? A meteorologist’s income is not dependent on grant money; it is dependent on knowing the weather. My local meteorologist relies on computer models like the rest, but every once in a while he will speak about how the model isn’t accounting for something correctly. In other words, he uses the model to get an overview and his training and experience to get a forecast. If he just followed models blindly, he would be out of a job and fast. So really, how many meteorologists really believed in AGW?
Remember, also, the Weather Channel’s Heidi Cullem that said any meteorologist who doesn’t believe in AGW should have their AMS certification revoked. (As an aside, The Weather Channel is the absolute worst place to go for forecasts. They are a TV station and as such they depend on sensationalism for ratings. What is more sensationalist than an imminent disaster?) Soon after, James Spann, a meteorologist in Alabama, said this:
I noticed this story left out the sample size. How many meteorologists were interviewed? The first paragraph shows their motives from the beginning when they state the emails were “stolen” even though you cannot steal what is legally yours and even if you could, there is no evidence of malfeasance whatsoever. All they say is “largest to date”. Well, okay, tell us how large. Then at the end, they clearly state their motives. They want to “how to help television meteorologists nationwide become an effective source of informal science education about climate change.” Translation: re-education to fit our ideals.
The purpose of this study is clear. It is yet another attempt to convert the perpetrators of bad climate science exposed in climategate into victims. “Although subsequent investigations showed that the climate scientists had done nothing wrong …” All you need to know in that sentence.
Heh heh heh…
It’s more darkly amusing than merely figuring out what we already knew, because it fails to figure two other stand-out things we already knew:
“subsequent investigations showed that the climate scientists had done nothing wrong” is completely wide of the mark. The truth is that the subsequent investigations were deliberately scoped and staffed to “show” that the climate scientists had done nothing wrong.
“weathercasters, if given the opportunity and resources, can become an important source of climate change education for a broad cross section of Americans.” is also wide of the mark. They already have the opportunity and resources, and they already are an important source of climate change education. That is, unless the intention is to make them an important source of climate change propaganda, which is a fundamentally different aim.
Firstly the emails were not stolen, there is no evidence to support this and it shows the bias of the authors of the report. There have as yet been no INDEPENDENT investigations into climategate, the cover up whitewash series of ‘investigations’ staffed by insiders and stooges decided the conclusions before they ever sat down.
What the report suggests is the co opting and re education and indoctrination of weather forecasters as a new avenue of airing and spreading of CAGW propaganda. The obvious purpose is to find another avenue that is trusted and respected, the CAGW climate science avenues are by and large now trusted less than a double glazing salesman driving a beemer with a bumper sticker saying ‘one born every minute’.
Will this trick work as planned? Probably not! Weather forecasters reputations rest entirely on the accuracy or not of their work, they stand or fall on real genuine knowledge based scientific observations. If TV weathermen are conned onto inserting false assertions/false data/unsupported findings/scaremongering hogwash they will quickly be out of a job.
Its all very well for those with tenures/jobs for life/state parasites to incite weather forecasters to spread CAGW propaganda but it will not be the former who will lose their jobs and incomes and reputations. If any TV weather forecasters are stupid enough to fall for this kind of incitement to spread a fraud then they would most certainly deserve everything that would come their way. Look closely at the wording and you see the utterly desperate state of mind of the authors, these people are at the doors to the last chance saloon. They are finished and all it will take is for them to realise how ridiculous they truly have become. The paragraph below says it all really.
“Ultimately, the team hopes to answer key research questions about how to help television meteorologists nationwide become an effective source of informal science education about climate change.”
Informal they say but deniable they most certainly mean. Are these people so deranged they cannot see how transparent the real meaning behind those words actually is? The cynical exploitation of others to spread exaggerated and overblown and untrue propaganda that they themselves dare not spread themselves because they fear for their own reputations. That is the reality isnt it? They have squandered away their trust capital and now wish to exploit the trust capital of another group. Please snip- they are real scum.
Not only were they stolen, but after they were stolen their release was unauthorized!
“The study showed that age was not a factor nor was professional credentials, but men—independent of political ideology and belief in global warming—were more likely than their female counterparts to say that Climategate made them doubt that global warming was happening.”
(My emphasis)
Heh – there’s the solution: sack all male weather forecasters, employ only females!
I know that’s sexist – but the ‘researchers’ started it …
🙂
Not sure that the weathercasters picked up the story from listening to their own stations. The story was well covered by most media in Britain but nonexistent on American TV. One or two distorted stories on networks, none on local stations that I saw.
More likely they were picking it up on the web, from people like their former colleague Anthony!
So the results are in. Folks in Ivory Towers consider EVERYONE else to be stupid, easily swayed, and in need of being educated in “Ivory Tower” climate change beliefs. Makes me want to tear up all three of my college degrees.