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.
Don’t worry, at least some owls still believe in global warming:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_9401000/9401733.stm
John Coleman says: February 23, 2011 at 9:48 am
[Yes, this survey was agenda driven. The George Mason University unit is funded to promote Global Warming according to the IPCC Chapter and Verse.—- TV stations in the United States for the most part did not cover “climategate”. The local news Producers regarded it as an unimportant——Instead they made sure to keep their viewers informed about the latest reports —the pronouncements of smooth, well known local political figures. —Any skeptical pronouncements would be grounds for an cautionary note from management.— George Mason will have some impact in coming months; but nothing that will tip the scales. TV weathercasters will have little impact in the global warming debate; their world is too restricted. Lindsey Lohan will get far more coverage on local news that global warming pro or con. That is the sad state of TV news.]
——————————————————————————-
I think that this is the reality as summarised by John Coleman here. And the MSM is driven by the bottom line of the balance sheet.
Douglas
David Finfrock – are you reading this?
In my opinion, this blog note , along with the original constitute more than the usual give and take about climate change.
Anthony, the two articles should be viewed side by side to be carefully read.
The funding by the NSF to George Mason should also be looked at in terms of:
a. First Amendment issue
The goverment is efforting the manipulation of “on air” reporting.
b. Scale
Has NSF funded other similar media research for the purposes of influencing
public opinion channels?
Anthony, you may need a new category…. “Legal or Illegal”
Original Post [below]
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/15/tv-weathercaster-re-education-proposed-by-nsf-and-gmu/#more-31756
TV weathercaster re-education proposed by NSF and GMU
Posted on January 15, 2011 by Anthony Watts
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.
Just more incidental proof that woman are less critical thinkers than men. Why is that?
Also, this article is extremely biased and ignores obvious questions.
I would not trust any climate scientists or TV meteorologists there are all on the gravy train it is going to come back and bite them in a big way when the truth on global warming found out to be a scam
Nimrods who WEREN’T affected in this way by Climategate are the phenoms worthy of study. How can any honest person accept the pals-investigating-pals investigations as having done anything but deepen the distrust.
Probably, people who get that climate information from newspapers and blogs were more effected by the climategate reporting. On the other hand, people who get that information by reading and evaluating the scientific literature were not effected by the climategate news. Hardly seems likely that many meteorologists read scientific studies about climate.
Hang on, isn’t George Mason the ‘home’ of Wegman whom Bradley has fulminated about so intemperately?
How is that going?
And who can diagnose GM’s apparently split personality?
BillD says:
February 23, 2011 at 1:29 pm
On the other hand, people who get that information by reading and evaluating the scientific literature were not effected by the climategate news
========================================
Bill, is that saying that people that read the scientific literature already thought it was a scam, and still do?
Oh, the Koch funded George Mason University finds…
what they are paid to find.
Wow, that’s remarkable. 🙂
REPLY: Koch also funds the NOVA TV science series on PBS, does that mean the program is bad science then? – Anthony
BillD;
Your post effected a strong response in me, since your observation and implication was that TV-only news watching matched uncritical thinking, which I agree with. But I was negatively affected by your malaprop. I’m so tired of loose use of English that I sometimes lose it. Then again, there are other issues more important than that. It’s at its worst in the blogosphere, which makes it a problem for compulsive surfers like me, though. I try to toe a line of politeness, and not get towed under too often.
Please study the above. Carefully. >:(
;p
😉
The abstract is here:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2010BAMS3094.1
Multivariate analysis showed that political ideology, belief in global warming, and gender each predicted a negative impact of the story, but certifications from professional associations did not. Furthermore, respondents who followed the story reported less trust in climate scientists (2.8 versus 3.2; p < 0.01), and in the IPCC (2.2 versus 2.7; p < 0.01), than those who had not. We conclude that, at least temporarily, Climategate has likely impeded efforts to encourage some weathercasters to embrace the role of climate change educator. These results also suggest that many TV weathercasters responded to Climategate more through the lens of political ideology than through the lens of meteorology.
So once again opinions on global warming are related to political ideology.
REPLY: Correct, that’s how it started and continues to be pushed worldwide. It’s a political movement. Otherwise there would not be so many attempts at taxes attached to it. – Anthony
REPLY: Correct, that’s how it started and continues to be pushed worldwide. It’s a political movement. Otherwise there would not be so many attempts at taxes attached to it. – Anthony
The science behind the theory of AGW did not originate out of politics.
Was Arrhenius a Democrat, a Republican? How do you know. He actually thought that CO2 emissions would be beneficial for agriculture.
How about Callendar, Keeling, Plass, Schneider and Manabe? Where is the evidence that politics drove the development of the physics? Here is a history of global warming. Is there any indication it that politics played a role in the development of the scientific theory?
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/simple.htm
After the science was developed and the conclusions were presented, in the 1980’s right wing political think tanks pushed the opposition to the scientific theories, because of the implications that increased government regulation was needed. Libertarian think tanks, opposed to regulation of anything, including emissions causing acid rain, and second hand smoke, started to oppose the science behind AGW.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt
REPLY: No I was referring to Jim Hansen’s speech before Congress in 1988, where they had to perform “stagecraft” by making the room hot so people would sweat. That started off the issue in modern times, and it was borne of politics and theater.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/15/getting-steamed-about-global-warming-not-coming-to-a-theatre-near-you/
That’s what really got everybody’s attention. It even motivated me before I figured out this was all overhyped.
AGW is a scientific turned political issue, there’s no getting around it.
– Anthony
REPLY: No I was referring to Jim Hansen’s speech before Congress in 1988, where they had to perform “stagecraft” by making the room hot so people would sweat. That started off the issue in modern times, and it was borne of politics and theater.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/15/getting-steamed-about-global-warming-not-coming-to-a-theatre-near-you/
That’s what really got everybody’s attention. It even motivated me before I figured out this was all overhyped.
AGW is a scientific turned political issue, there’s no getting around it.
– Anthony
What I objected to was the statement,
“REPLY: Correct, that’s how it started and continues to be pushed worldwide. It’s a political movement. Otherwise there would not be so many attempts at taxes attached to it. – Anthony”
Global warming theory was the result of 120 years of scientific research. It didn’t become politically charged until some people realized that it would involve government regulation. Senator Tim Wirth’s stagecraft, and Hansen’s advocacy doesn’t mean that politics drove the scientific theory. It is just an ordinary example of politics and salesmanship in an effort to create governmental action on the basis of the science that has been developed. The right wing think tanks had been attacking the science because they opposed the implications of the regulation. One example was the advice of Nierenburg, who told GHW Bush that global warming was driven by the sun.
http://www.scienceprogress.org/2010/08/distorting-science-while-invoking-science-2/
During the 1988 election, candidate George H. W. Bush had promised to address climate change—pledging to meet the “greenhouse effect with the White House effect.” But soon after Bush took office, Nierenberg presented a briefing to the White House staff that claimed global warming was caused by the sun, not greenhouse gases, and that as solar irradiance declined during the 1990s, the Earth would begin to cool.
Despite a complete lack of evidence that the sun actually had increased in brightness during the previous few decades, Nierenberg’s briefing was taken seriously. One White House staffer commented on the written report that accompanied it, “Everyone has read it.” And it strengthened a faction within the White House, led by Chief of Staff John Sununu, which opposed environmental regulation.
REPLY: ScienceProgress, like ClimateProgress is a political spin source, so by citing it, you prove my point. AGW is now a political issue, and there’s really no getting around that. It’s now become all about taxation. Witness Australia. – Anthony
Taphonomic at 9:43 am: “I’ve often wondered about how unauthorized it was. I’m not a big fan of conspiracy theories but this set of shenanigans always seemed a bit too scripted.”
I concur, and in my comment I said “probably” unauthorized for somewhat the same line of thinking as your own. From what little I read of the Climategate collection (admittedly not a lot), the damning precision of the emails and files says something other than “unauthorized.”
It is preposterous to think that the archive is a random selection from 12+ years of email.
My recollection was that AGW became a political dogma rather than one of a number of scientific theories when Enron, Lehman Brothers, et al, saw fortunes to be made from carbon trading.
PS. Meteorologists, as people with related scientific knowledge and training, are more likely to smell something rotten from the climategate emails than watermelons, econuts and kids with “Environmental Studies” qualifications.
Coldfinger says:
February 24, 2011 at 5:52 pm
My recollection was that AGW became a political dogma rather than one of a number of scientific theories when Enron, Lehman Brothers, et al, saw fortunes to be made from carbon trading.
PS. Meteorologists, as people with related scientific knowledge and training, are more likely to smell something rotten from the climategate emails than watermelons, econuts and kids with “Environmental Studies” qualifications.
Some of the difference may be related to a kind of professional rivalry and cultural gap. Climatology is the study of longer term phenomena driving climate, and meteorology focuses on the day to day, month to month prediction and is less concerned with the long term forcing factors.
http://www.weather.com/blog/weather/8_7877.html