Forecasting Denial: Why Are TV Weathercasters Ignoring Climate Change?

[TerryM]

I'm still astonished that TV weatherpeople are less well informed than the general public. The only way I can conceive of this happening is if the weatherpeople have been subject to more disinformative propaganda than the public. I wonder if any of those in the field recall lecture series, classes towards accreditation, professional periodicals or even flyers directed to them that may have presented denial arguments or that ridiculed more scientific findings.

Terry

[tacoman25]

Glenn gets it. everyone else? naso much.

I think you underestimate "everyone else". I think most people get it (TV mets shouldn't be acting like authorities about climate change, especially if they are ignorant on the subject), but the fact is that like any other profession, you can be ignorant about some things but still quite qualified and capable at your job.

And sometimes you just have to learn that you can't force everyone to adopt the same views as you. You can oppose them if you like, but insisting that they be publicly ridiculed or whatever, and that they are intentionally trying to further a political agenda is a bit presumptive and giving them too much credit.

As you have pointed out, a lot of TV mets aren't even real mets. I think you might be taking them too seriously in this thread.

[tacoman25]

the TV met's job is to report the weather; forecasts that in some cases are written by other people and performed by the met in front of the camera. many TV mets, as noted in the original article almost no one read, don't have met degrees. they are essentially actors. if they are not well-informed enough about basic climate science, then they are not qualified to report on science and they have no credibility to report on science. they are, however, qualified to read from the teleprompter.

Exactly!

So why are you concerned about what these so-called "actors" are spouting off about climate change? And has been pointed out many times in this thread, the ignorance is not just in the form of outright denial.

[tacoman25]

I'm still astonished that TV weatherpeople are less well informed than the general public. The only way I can conceive of this happening is if the weatherpeople have been subject to more disinformative propaganda than the public. I wonder if any of those in the field recall lecture series, classes towards accreditation, professional periodicals or even flyers directed to them that may have presented denial arguments or that ridiculed more scientific findings.

Terry

We don't know this as fact. We only have a small sample size of TV mets who were answering a questionnaire. There is little evidence that I have seen that many TV mets are in fact engaging in disinformation on climate change publicly. There are a lot of assumptions going on in this thread.

[tacoman25]

So according to that, 3 out of 4 TV mets do NOT believe global warming is a scam. 75% non-deniers.

[donsutherland1]

Exactly!

So why are you concerned about what these so-called "actors" are spouting off about climate change? And has been pointed out many times in this thread, the ignorance is not just in the form of outright denial.

I believe the concern has to do with the perceived credibility these weathercasters possess courtesy of their weather-related credentials.

At least some share of the public assumes that their weathercasters have the expertise to discuss climate-related issues--actual climate knowledge among the field is uneven, some weather forecasters have a lot of knowledge while others have very little--not realizing that there is a distinction between weather and climate. There's also a more subtle but real distinction between long-term climate and a region's more recent climatology. In other words, the argument that 'a good meteorologist knows his/her climo' does not necessarily mean he/she is actually an authority on climate science.

This situation can cause segments of the public that are underinformed on the climate issue to readily embrace the ideas advanced by their TV weather forecasters. Lacking the knowledge or understanding to distinguish the validity of those ideas, those segments of the public defer to those whom they perceive possess the expertise. In part, that outcome shapes overall public opinion.

Today, there's a tidbit that offers a potential example. In a column today, Joe Bastardi wrote:

...it appears that CO2 has little to do with the temperatures of these planets -- it is dependent on the atmospheric pressure.

From an introductory course in physics, one can recall that if a given volume of air is compressed, its temperature would increase. In contrast, if a given volume of air were allowed to expand, its temperature would decrease. Those who read the argument, recalling their introductory course in physics, might conclude that the argument 'sounds good.'

Actually, the problem lies with what is omitted. There are other ways to heat/cool temperatures. Bastardi's argument does not disprove CO2's well-established properties nor debunk the scientific consensus that rising atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and other greenhouse gases have been the main driver of a persistent energy imbalance that has driven the observed warming that remains underway.

The best course is to cite what the science understands while acknowledging the areas of uncertainty that currently exist. Attribution science is still in its relative infancy, but certain events can more easily be attributed to climate change via well-established statistical methodologies (e.g., the incidence of extreme heat outbreaks on a global basis) than others.

[tacoman25]

I believe the concern has to do with the perceived credibility these weathercasters possess courtesy of their weather-related credentials.

At least some share of the public assumes that their weathercasters have the expertise to discuss climate-related issues--actual climate knowledge among the field is uneven, some weather forecasters have a lot of knowledge while others have very little--not realizing that there is a distinction between weather and climate. There's also a more subtle but real distinction between long-term climate and a region's more recent climatology. In other words, the argument that 'a good meteorologist knows his/her climo' does not necessarily mean he/she is actually an authority on climate science.

This situation can cause segments of the public that are underinformed on the climate issue to readily embrace the ideas advanced by their TV weather forecasters. Lacking the knowledge or understanding to distinguish the validity of those ideas, those segments of the public defer to those whom they perceive possess the expertise. In part, that outcome shapes overall public opinion.

Today, there's a tidbit that offers a potential example. In a column today, Joe Bastardi wrote:

...it appears that CO2 has little to do with the temperatures of these planets -- it is dependent on the atmospheric pressure.

From an introductory course in physics, one can recall that if a given volume of air is compressed, its temperature would increase. In contrast, if a given volume of air were allowed to expand, its temperature would decrease. Those who read the argument, recalling their introductory course in physics, might conclude that the argument 'sounds good.'

Actually, the problem lies with what is omitted. There are other ways to heat/cool temperatures. Bastardi's argument does not disprove CO2's well-established properties nor debunk the scientific consensus that rising atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and other greenhouse gases have been the main driver of a persistent energy imbalance that has driven the observed warming that remains underway.

The best course is to cite what the science understands while acknowledging the areas of uncertainty that currently exist. Attribution science is still in its relative infancy, but certain events can more easily be attributed to climate change via well-established statistical methodologies (e.g., the incidence of extreme heat outbreaks on a global basis) than others.

I understand the concern about the public being misinformed about climate change (and again, this concern should go both ways, as some TV mets have gone beyond their expertise and scientific consensus to link AGW to current weather events), but I don't think Joe Bastardi represents the majority of TV mets. The vast majority of them are not speaking out about climate change to the public, or certainly not denying it publicly. And actually, according to the study wxtrix linked above, 3 out of 4 are not in the "AGW is a scam" camp.

I feel that this issue is being blown out of proportion by some in this thread, and the overall evidence is simply not there to make the case it's a major issue.

[FloridaJohn]

So according to that, 3 out of 4 TV mets do NOT believe global warming is a scam. 75% non-deniers.

Not a "scam" per say, however, according to that (http://www.climatech...March_2010).pdf);

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%)

That seems like a disconnect to me. If almost all are "well informed," then two-thirds cannot understand that the cause is "mostly natural."

[tacoman25]

Not a "scam" per say, however, according to that (http://www.climatech...March_2010).pdf);

That seems like a disconnect to me. If almost all are "well informed," then two-thirds cannot understand that the cause is "mostly natural."

It's still not the same as calling them outright "deniers" as some here have done. They may not be up to date on the current scientific consensus on how much of the change is natural and how much is man-made, but again, these aren't climatologists and many of them aren't even degreed mets. And little evidence that they are propagating whatever beliefs they have about AGW to the general public.

Again, I have to question the reasoning behind the outrage here.

[FloridaJohn]

And little evidence that they are propagating whatever beliefs they have about AGW to the general public.

According to the survey,

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.

Seems like halfway decent evidence to me.

[QVectorman]

We have a top secret group of about a 1000 mets on facebook that is by invite only and we spread the disinformation among ourselves and plot ways to discredit AGW We are also expanding to google+ chats BWAHHAHAHAHAHAHA

[FPizz]

We have a top secret group of about a 1000 mets on facebook that is by invite only and we spread the disinformation among ourselves and plot ways to discredit AGW We are also expanding to google+ chats BWAHHAHAHAHAHAHA

Haha fantastic!

[tacoman25]

According to the survey,

Seems like halfway decent evidence to me.

Well, without context, we don't know what they are saying about climate change. Again, in my own experience, I have seen a lot more references to AGW by TV mets in connection with the weather, as opposed to "this is a scam". This whole thread just smacks of paranoia in some ways...almost a witch hunt mentality:

"We must ferret out the deniers/propogandists amongst the meteorological community (even if they are just actors playing mets on TV) and expose them!"

[LocoAko]

Well, without context, we don't know what they are saying about climate change. Again, in my own experience, I have seen a lot more references to AGW by TV mets in connection with the weather, as opposed to "this is a scam". This whole thread just smacks of paranoia in some ways...almost a witch hunt mentality:

"We must ferret out the deniers/propogandists amongst the meteorological community (even if they are just actors playing mets on TV) and expose them!"

You've been shown facts, studies, and anecdotes yet you still say you don't see it and that it's all paranoia? Tough to argue with that ...

[FloridaJohn]

Well, without context, we don't know what they are saying about climate change.

Sure we can. I think that was the point of the study we are discussing in this thread. Once again, from the study:

• 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%)
  
• a large majority said they are fairly or very well informed about the causes of global warming (93%)
  
• almost two-thirds (63%) reported it is caused mostly by natural changes in the environment
  
• 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
  
• 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.
  

Looking at those numbers, it appears to me that a majority of TV mets would report about global warming in a way that does not agree with the current scientific consensus.

What is your take on the results of the survey?

[tacoman25]

you think tv mets should be reporting non-factual information during their broadcasts or via social media? how does that help the general public?

Other than Joe Bastardi, I haven't really seen or heard of many TV mets speaking out against AGW. Or denying it, whatever you want to call it. Whenever I watch the Weather Channel, or my local news TV outlet or website, almost any reference I see to AGW is not of the denial category.

Maybe it happens in some places, in which case the TV mets are probably just reflecting the mentality of their viewers...not saying it's right, but let's face it, TV mets don't usually control popular opinion. If anything, they are usually referenced to in ridicule (jokes about how it's the only job where you are allowed to be wrong most the time, etc).

If you are truly worried about TV met's influence on the public mindset about AGW, I really don't see that as being a major issue. Change the public mindset more, and that will likely change the approach of whatever TV mets are preaching against climate change.

[tacoman25]

Sure we can. I think that was the point of the study we are discussing in this thread. Once again, from the study:

• 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%)
  
• a large majority said they are fairly or very well informed about the causes of global warming (93%)
  
• almost two-thirds (63%) reported it is caused mostly by natural changes in the environment
  
• 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
  
• 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.
  

Looking at those numbers, it appears to me that a majority of TV mets would report about global warming in a way that does not agree with the current scientific consensus.

What is your take on the results of the survey?

My take is that it is very easy to lead survey takers to certain answers. A lot of it has to do with how questions are worded. There is disagreement among scientists about the severity/magnitude of global warming, and that may be why some of the respondents said there should be a "balance" of viewpoints in coverage of climate science.

And you can't really come to definite conclusions about what these mets are saying in public forums based on what they are answering in that survey. For one, the survey doesn't even ask what they are saying about climate change in public interactions. You are just left to assume they are saying whatever their survey answers say they believe...but it doesn't always work that way.

The bolded portion above shows that this wasn't exactly an objective third party survey that didn't care what the respondents answers were about climate change.

[FloridaJohn]

Other than Joe Bastardi, I haven't really seen or heard of many TV mets speaking out against AGW.

571 TV mets participated in the survey. How big is your sample size?

There is disagreement among scientists about the severity/magnitude of global warming, and that may be why some of the respondents said there should be a "balance" of viewpoints in coverage of climate science.

Or, it may be that they do not believe in AGW, and plan to report it that way. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

You are just left to assume they are saying whatever their survey answers say they believe.

In my experience, that is they way the world works. You can see it play out everyday right here on this forum.

The bolded portion above shows that this wasn't exactly an objective third party survey that didn't care what the respondents answers were about climate change.

So you are saying that the bolded portion is not true? How does the reporting of the results of other research change how the respondents answered the questions?

[hurricaneschwartz]

Other than Joe Bastardi, I haven't really seen or heard of many TV mets speaking out against AGW. Or denying it, whatever you want to call it. Whenever I watch the Weather Channel, or my local news TV outlet or website, almost any reference I see to AGW is not of the denial category.

Maybe it happens in some places, in which case the TV mets are probably just reflecting the mentality of their viewers...not saying it's right, but let's face it, TV mets don't usually control popular opinion. If anything, they are usually referenced to in ridicule (jokes about how it's the only job where you are allowed to be wrong most the time, etc).

If you are truly worried about TV met's influence on the public mindset about AGW, I really don't see that as being a major issue. Change the public mindset more, and that will likely change the approach of whatever TV mets are preaching against climate change.

1. Joe B. is not a TV met (wouldn't last 2 months)

2. There is a clear disconnect between the views of TV mets vs. climate scientists

3. As stated before, we TV mets are often the only scientists many viewers ever hear from (those of us who are true mets, of course).

4. I think there are 2 main reasons so many TV mets are either strong skeptics or scam/hoax people:

a) we tend to have bigger egos, leading to beliefs that we already know everything, and no one can tell us what to think

many of us are in higher income brackets than climate scientists....that can affect political thinking

5. This is NOT trivial, and it IS important that responsible, educated TV mets talk about climate change. We have an opportunity to educate viewers about enough of the basics, and what is clearly agreed on regarding AGW. This can be separated from some of the issues climate scientists actually debate, such as attribution, speed and impacts of warming, and what, if anything, should be done about it.

Glenn

[tacoman25]

571 TV mets participated in the survey. How big is your sample size?

Or, it may be that they do not believe in AGW, and plan to report it that way. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

In my experience, that is they way the world works. You can see it play out everyday right here on this forum.

So you are saying that the bolded portion is not true? How does the reporting of the results of other research change how the respondents answered the questions?

1. I'm not comparing my experience directly to the survey. I'm just saying, I haven't seen much evidence that many TV mets are out there telling people AGW is false, including my own experience. And I've followed a lot of online weather blogs/sites that have met input and lived in three different TV markets.

2. Why isn't there a question in the survey asking what exactly the mets are saying publicly then?

3. In my experience, assumptions based on surveys like these don't work out too well. There are too many variables not addressed in the questions.

4. Did I say it was not true? No. I first made the point that surveys/polls can easily be worded a certain way to achieve certain answers, and that bolded portion clearly showed the bias of the survey takers in this case. I would prefer a more objective party when it comes to survey results.

[tacoman25]

1. Joe B. is not a TV met (wouldn't last 2 months)

2. There is a clear disconnect between the views of TV mets vs. climate scientists

3. As stated before, we TV mets are often the only scientists many viewers ever hear from (those of us who are true mets, of course).

4. I think there are 2 main reasons so many TV mets are either strong skeptics or scam/hoax people:

a) we tend to have bigger egos, leading to beliefs that we already know everything, and no one can tell us what to think

many of us are in higher income brackets than climate scientists....that can affect political thinking

5. This is NOT trivial, and it IS important that responsible, educated TV mets talk about climate change. We have an opportunity to educate viewers about enough of the basics, and what is clearly agreed on regarding AGW. This can be separated from some of the issues climate scientists actually debate, such as attribution, speed and impacts of warming, and what, if anything, should be done about it.

Glenn

1. Whatever, he's a met/weather person in the public eye. Which is what we are discussing, right?

2. Sure. They are in different fields, could play a role.

3. I disagree. With all the information out there on the internet now, not to mention magazines articles, other TV programs, other forms of media, etc, the public has plenty of access now to scientific viewpoints. More than ever before.

4. a) Makes sense...so tell me, in your experience, does it seem to you that most of your colleagues believe AGW is a hoax, scam, etc?

5. But one of the problems is that climate change is a pretty complex issue, and the true experts on it are climatologists, not TV mets. Not that TV mets shouldn't be educated on it, but it's not their job to be experts on climate change, and it's also not their job to communicate about climate change to the public.

[FPizz]

Out of the 571 how many actually report what they believe on tv? Does it say that? If not, the survey pretty much means nothing.

[tacoman25]

then whose job is it, at a local TV station?

The local news station's job is to report the news. The sports person reports the sports news, the anchors report general news, and the weather person reports the weather and makes forecasts.

People who are actual experts on climate change are the ones who should be communicating it to the public. Climatologists. Or people like Al Gore, or anyone else who deems climate change a worthy cause for activism and public awareness.

[WeatherRusty]

What am I denying exactly?

Funny how the goal should be to educate the public on climate science, yet pointing out disinformation on attribution to AGW somehow qualifies as irrelevant or worth dismissing as acceptable.

You deny the full range in climate sensitivity uncertainty, insisting warming while real, will be minimal and the resultant climate change impacts mild. You are what is termed a lukewarmer...a degree of denial.

[ORH_wxman]

You deny the full range in climate sensitivity uncertainty, insisting warming while real, will be minimal and the resultant climate change impacts mild. You are what is termed a lukewarmer...a degree of denial.

Completely false. I find the higher climate sensitivity less likely than the lower estimates. This view is supported by peer review research. You can find peer review research as well to support your idea that higher sensitivity is more likely. That is why it is one of the most uncertain aspects of climate change. Saying you believe one is more or less likely than the others is not denial.

[skierinvermont]

Sure we can. I think that was the point of the study we are discussing in this thread. Once again, from the study:

• 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%)
  
• a large majority said they are fairly or very well informed about the causes of global warming (93%)
  
• almost two-thirds (63%) reported it is caused mostly by natural changes in the environment
  
• 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
  
• 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.
  

Looking at those numbers, it appears to me that a majority of TV mets would report about global warming in a way that does not agree with the current scientific consensus.

What is your take on the results of the survey?

The only thing I can agree with taco on is that the final question is loaded. Terms like "balance" have positive connotations and should not be used in poll questions. A better question might have simply been to ask "Should climate coverage give the same attention to majority human-caused and majority natural-caused climate change viewpoints?" It's a difficult question to ask without implying too much credibility for the denier viewpoint. Even my wording gives too much credibility by suggesting that both are viewpoints. Human-caused climate change isn't just a viewpoint, it's science. But it is better than using loaded terms like "balanced." "Equal" is a better term, "the same" is the best term IMO.

Other than that though, I think plenty of evidence has been given demonstrating that many TV mets make denier chit-chat on air and that even more promote a denier viewpoint off air. I've seen it. In fact, there are countless examples in this forum of mets (with their red tags) making denier comments. As Don said, the concern is people will believe these people are qualified to comment when they are not.

Unless all the poll numbers are completely wrong, it's a mathematical certainty.

[hurricaneschwartz]

The local news station's job is to report the news. The sports person reports the sports news, the anchors report general news, and the weather person reports the weather and makes forecasts.

People who are actual experts on climate change are the ones who should be communicating it to the public. Climatologists. Or people like Al Gore, or anyone else who deems climate change a worthy cause for activism and public awareness.

Aside from our knowledge of meteorology and basic science, our specialty is explaining science to the masses, who generally don't read or see enough to be informed. Like you said, it's a very complex subject, and it takes certain skills to explain it simply. That is the reason (plus the fact that we have build up trust and credibility) we SHOULD be talking about one of the most talked about subjects in science. People have questions-who should answer them? Politicians? Environmental activists? Spokesmen for the fossil fuel industry?

Glenn

[FloridaJohn]

The only thing I can agree with taco on is that the final question is loaded. Terms like "balance" have positive connotations and should not be used in poll questions.

Perhaps. I assume that a group of researchers asking questions would be aware of these issues and have written a survey that takes these things into account. But maybe not.

Here was the actual question that was asked, with a five point scale (strongly agree, etc.) for the answer:

14. Coverage of climate change science must reflect a “balance” of viewpoints just as coverage of political or social issues should.

[tacoman25]

you didn't answer my question. try again.

Excuse me?

Yes, I did...if you need me to spell it out for you, there is no one with that responsibility at a news station. Unless they have a news feature about climate change, in which case a qualified guest expert would be the one

And I offered a much fuller and thought-out answer than you have provided to many of the questions I and others have asked you in this thread - several times you have completely avoided any answer at all.

You are all about short retorts without real thought or any bit of open-mindedness. Honestly, you are the LAST person who should be asking others to "try again" with answers, when you don't even try. Start holding yourself to the same standards you hold others and you will earn a little more respect. Keep disrespecting and dismissing others and you will get the same.

[tacoman25]

Other than that though, I think plenty of evidence has been given demonstrating that many TV mets make denier chit-chat on air and that even more promote a denier viewpoint off air. I've seen it. In fact, there are countless examples in this forum of mets (with their red tags) making denier comments. As Don said, the concern is people will believe these people are qualified to comment when they are not.

Unless all the poll numbers are completely wrong, it's a mathematical certainty.

Hold on here. We've seen this too many times before...there is a difference between a "denier", someone who denies AGW exists (and this was specified in the cited survey in this thread), and someone who is a "skeptic" like Will or myself or even yourself in some respects - they believe AGW is real and the earth is warming, but are skeptical about some claims/projections for AGW. It's not fair or accurate to equate the two.

Yes, there are a lot of mets on these forums that would consider themselves skeptics to some degree or another. But I have not seen many actual mets that are outright deniers of AGW.