Forecasting Denial: Why Are TV Weathercasters Ignoring Climate Change?

[LocoAko]

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/forecasting-denial-why-are-tv-weathercasters-ignoring-climate-change-20121205

Good article, IMO. There are obviously a few cringe-worthy points (the third sentence in, for example) but I think this is a good thing to discuss: why so many TV-meteorologists deny (yes, deny) climate change and why this matters.

I know Glenn Schwartz has spoken prominently on this issue. IMO, it is completely irresponsible to spread lies in this manner. The on air met is probably one of, if not the most, trusted scientists in contact with the general public (hence why Chad Myers is apparently also a volcanologist, oceanographer, etc). At a time when people go on and on about the need for trust from the general public in order that people heed warnings, etc. it serves no purpose to DISCREDIT the leading scientists in the climate field and further weaken the public's confidence in science. I personally think climate change should be part of the AMS seal of approval... and while I don't think on-air mets should be required to talk about it, spreading lies to all of their followers via Twitter is just simply maddening...

I also wonder why only 1/3 of on-air mets believe the consensus that anthropogenic global warming is occurring. Many on-air "mets" do not have met degrees, but speaking from experience, it is entirely possible to graduate with a B.S. in met without thoroughly learning about climate change. A B.S. in met does not make one an expert, like people without AND with degrees sometimes like to think.

Something needs to be done.

[ORH_wxman]

There is a large difference between being a full blown "denier" and going all gung ho on the attribution aspects of AGW. The latter has a ton of legitimate uncertainty, particularly to many sensible wx aspects that a TV meteorologist focuses on such as large snowstorms, hurricanes, tornadoes, etc. The former there isn't any excuse for. The latter is legit to be a skeptic on.

This article doesn't really make a very good distinction between the two.

[LocoAko]

There is a large difference between being a full blown "denier" and going all gung ho on the attribution aspects of AGW. The latter has a ton of legitimate uncertainty, particularly to many sensible wx aspects that a TV meteorologist focuses on such as large snowstorms, hurricanes, tornadoes, etc. The former there isn't any excuse for. The latter is legit to be a skeptic on.

This article doesn't really make a very good distinction between the two.

I'll concede that it doesn't, no. But what people like David Bernard from Miami do is completely unacceptable and needs to seriously be examined, IMO.

[FPizz]

The on air met is on tv for maybe a total of 4 minutes per hour telecast. The ones in ny pretty much never speak about climate. They tell the weather, then are gone. The majority of people wouldn't care anyway. How many times have we heard someone say that a met is the only person to be wrong most of the time and still have a job. If they spoke about global warming, it would probably do more harm than good.

[Bozart]

I couldn't help noticing the paragraph in the article that began, "It's not always a matter of ideology, though." Funny, that same paragraph ended by saying, "'By even bringing up the topic, you know you're going to alienate the percentage of the audience who still link global warming with Al Gore and conspiracy theories. Why run into the buzz saw of denial? It's easier to stick to safe topics, like dew point and hot weather survival tips.'"

So the fact is it IS a matter of ideology. One of the two political parties has worked non-stop to politicize and distort and misrepresent, not only climate science, but all areas of science. And anyone who pretends not to know which party that is, is a bigger denier of reality than one Joe Bastardi ever dreamed of being.

[wolfpackmet]

I'm too busy dealing with all the Chemtrail and HAARP emails to have time with climate issues. Like Frank said I have to 2.5 minutes to give a forecast for a valley at 500ft elevation and viewers at 6000ft in surrounding mountains including 2 7day forecasts. I have no time, plus my producers, ND and consultants wouldn't allow it anyways.

[ORH_wxman]

I'll concede that it doesn't, no. But what people like David Bernard from Miami do is completely unacceptable and needs to seriously be examined, IMO.

I agree. To remain consistent though, then it would also be just as terrible to have a meteorologist on air saying that Hurricane Sandy was because of global warming with zero evidence of such claims. Same with the snowstorms of 2009-2010 theory.

Given the uncertainty in attribution, it is best to keep AGW off the agenda for TV mets. It doesn't help them predict a snowstorm or a hurricane or a chance of thunderstorms for the public. It creates a sideshow.

[LocoAko]

I'm too busy dealing with all the Chemtrail and HAARP emails to have time with climate issues. Like Frank said I have to 2.5 minutes to give a forecast for a valley at 500ft elevation and viewers at 6000ft in surrounding mountains including 2 7day forecasts. I have no time, plus my producers, ND and consultants wouldn't allow it anyways.

Just to clarify, they weren't suggesting on-air mets need to cover climate change topics since the time segments are so short... but rather just to, when it comes up, speak the truth about the issue, etc. Don't be the people on Twitter who spew lies about the subject. Not speaking about it is much better than speaking half-truths and lies.

[The_Global_Warmer]

I agree. To remain consistent though, then it would also be just as terrible to have a meteorologist on air saying that Hurricane Sandy was because of global warming with zero evidence of such claims. Same with the snowstorms of 2009-2010 theory.

Given the uncertainty in attribution, it is best to keep AGW off the agenda for TV mets. It doesn't help them predict a snowstorm or a hurricane or a chance of thunderstorms for the public. It creates a sideshow.

I agree.

but I think educating the viewing public on the warming trends and changes that are real shouldn't be dismissed like it is.

I don't expect a TV met to say one way or another what they think is coming but there have been big changes in my region and all are towards a warmer climate and the public met's continue to go on like nothing has changed.

Once again people are wondering if things are natural we should get a cold hard winter here and there.

They also are not getting answers for March and November.

nov:

March:

Not wanting to go on TV and put themselves out there is fine, whatever. But completely ignoring the elephant in the room is wrong.

There is nothing wrong with throwing up a graph that shows that kind of warming and talking about the changes henceforth, they don't have to say one word about what happens next.

They can say we will see if it continues to warm, levels of or cycles cooler, only time will tell.

Just don't act like we could break out in the kind of cold we used to get.

[ORH_wxman]

I agree.

but I think educating the viewing public on the warming trends and changes that are real shouldn't be dismissed like it is.

I don't expect a TV met to say one way or another what they think is coming but there have been big changes in my region and all are towards a warmer climate and the public met's continue to go on like nothing has changed.

Once again people are wondering if things are natural we should get a cold hard winter here and there.

They also are not getting answers for March and November.

nov:

March:

Not wanting to go on TV and put themselves out there is fine, whatever. But completely ignoring the elephant in the room is wrong.

There is nothing wrong with throwing up a graph that shows that kind of warming and talking about the changes henceforth, they don't have to say one word about what happens next.

They can say we will see if it continues to warm, levels of or cycles cooler, only time will tell.

Just don't act like we could break out in the kind of cold we used to get.

What is the point of a TV met going out of his way to say that a cold outbreak like 1960 is more unlikely now?

That doesn't identify with the audience very well and is irrelevant to his job of forecasting short term weather.

[ORH_wxman]

again, TV mets have blogs, Facebook accounts, and Twitter accounts where they do discuss things beyone short term weather.

Dan Satterfield (formerly of Huntsville, and now in Salisbury, MD) is an excellent example of how a TV met can bring accessible, correct climate change information to the public.

Thats fine if they want to post stuff on their own time like that as long as it is scientifically correct and not hubris like the attribution speculation with Sandy or 2009-2010 snowstorms or the 2011 tornado outbreak.

But "completely ignoring the elephant in the room is wrong" as Friv posted doesn't make any sense from a TV met standpoint. That is different from intentionally going out of your way to say there hasn't been any warming.

[WxUSAF]

Agree with the group here, but unfortunately there's no enforcement mechanism to admonish on-air met's with bad science besides these types of articles. I absolutely agree that attribution of individual red letter wx events to climate change is not only scientifically dubious but doesn't help advocate for climate action. There needs to be better instruction on climate in undergrad, because so many mets honestly think that climate models are little more than the 183748413954 hour GFS forecast.

[ORH_wxman]

but there were a number of sessions at AMS about extreme weather and the possible connections to climate change. so why shouldn't that discussion be translated down to the general public?

That doesn't mean stuff like Sandy, snowstorms, and tornadoes are attributable. Events like increased extreme drought have been studied in peer review and shown to be increasing globally. (though the U.S. has yet to see any increase)

Just because "extreme weather" on some levels is attributable to global warming, that doesn't mean you start attributing all extreme weather. That is totally misleading and quite likely does more harm than good in trying to educate the general public about climate science.

There is a lot of uncertainty in attribution studies so it is dangerous to start spouting off claims. It is a good way to lose trust with your audience.

[Vergent]

That doesn't mean stuff like Sandy, snowstorms, and tornadoes are attributable. Events like increased extreme drought have been studied in peer review and shown to be increasing globally. (though the U.S. has yet to see any increase)

Just because "extreme weather" on some levels is attributable to global warming, that doesn't mean you start attributing all extreme weather. That is totally misleading and quite likely does more harm than good in trying to educate the general public about climate science.

There is a lot of uncertainty in attribution studies so it is dangerous to start spouting off claims. It is a good way to lose trust with your audience.

Yes, but, you might take the occasion of a record high in May and say something like; "With global warming we can expect more record highs this summer. The elderly and infirm should get an air conditioner now while they are available."

This could save lives, and when the August heat wave hits, gain trust.

[CoastalWx]

Yes, but, you might take the occasion of a record high in May and say something like; "With global warming we can expect more record highs this summer. The elderly and infirm should get an air conditioner now while they are available."

This could save lives, and when the August heat wave hits, gain trust.

Totally irresponsible to say. Lets scare the public and target the elderly as a vulnerable population. How about something like this example "with la nina conditions possible through the summer, expect more record highs and possible drought conditions in the southern Plains." A much more direct statement instead of something obtuse like trying to relate it to GW.

[ORH_wxman]

Yes, but, you might take the occasion of a record high in May and say something like; "With global warming we can expect more record highs this summer. The elderly and infirm should get an air conditioner now while they are available."

This could save lives, and when the August heat wave hits, gain trust.

Except what you said is incorrect. A forecaster isn't going to say to expect more record highs in the summer because of a record high in the spring. That would have lost you a lot of trust in 2009.

Record highs will increase in the future in the means, but telling an audience that it will happen this coming summer is a good way to lose trust when you get a cool summer.

[skierinvermont]

This could save lives, and when the August heat wave hits, gain trust.

You mean if.

[ORH_wxman]

let's burn the strawman before he sidetracks the discussion--I never said that all extreme events should be linked irrefutably to AGW. but I still don't see a rationale for not discussing the possible links in the blogs and social media available to TV mets.

and on the other side, what is your opinion of TV mets who spout denier talking points to their audiences, as that is the main point of the article and this thread?

I think it is terrible.

And the previous argument is not a strawman. It actually happens. We recently had a prominent NYC TV met try and link a tornado to global warming.

I don't have any problem with talking about global warming in a responsible manner. However, this is rarely is the case. It seems to be one extreme or the other that make the rounds in media.

[Bozart]

Agree with the group here, but unfortunately there's no enforcement mechanism to admonish on-air met's with bad science besides these types of articles.

LocoAko suggested one in the OP:

I personally think climate change should be part of the AMS seal of approval

[Jonger]

Yes, but, you might take the occasion of a record high in May and say something like; "With global warming we can expect more record highs this summer. The elderly and infirm should get an air conditioner now while they are available."

This could save lives, and when the August heat wave hits, gain trust.

I bet the amount of hypothermia deaths each year is VERY close to the same as hyperthermia. This argument doesn't work... sorry.

HUMANS ARE TROPICAL. Take that coat off and prance around on a sub 45 degree day naked and see how long you last.

The World Health Organization published in 2001 that roughly 38% of all under-5-year-old deaths occurred in the neonatal period, accounting for 4 million annual deaths worldwide¹. Of all neonatal mortality, 99% occurs in the developing countries². Three-fourths of neonatal deaths occur during the first week of life, while an estimated 24-45% of neonatal deaths occur within the first 24 hours after birth³. Once outside the womb, one of the first and biggest problems these neonates face is hypothermia. At high risks of hypothermia are preterm infants due to high surface area to volume ratios as well as “high transepidermal water loss and consequential evaporative heat lost due to structurally and functionally immature skin”⁴. WHO estimates that 18% to 42% of worldwide annual infant deaths are caused by hypothermia⁵. Those infants who do survive often face life-long health battles with diabetes, heart disease, and low IQ⁶. Improved neonate survival has been associated with reducing heat losses in the first few days of life, particularly in preterm neonates.

http://incuvive.weeb...ypothermia.html

[tacoman25]

Just to clarify, they weren't suggesting on-air mets need to cover climate change topics since the time segments are so short... but rather just to, when it comes up, speak the truth about the issue, etc. Don't be the people on Twitter who spew lies about the subject. Not speaking about it is much better than speaking half-truths and lies.

Ok, but you can't force people to believe what you think they should believe. Climatology and meteorology are separate fields (yes, I know there are links). If a person's supposed area of expertise is meteorology, then spouting off opinions about climate change doesn't necessarily affect their ability to do their job as a weather forecaster. It's a distraction, sure, but anyone can hold opinions and express them as they wish.

If weather men/women are spreading climate change alarmist views, you may feel that is closer to correct, but it is still not something in their area of expertise or in their job description. It's just their beliefs/opinion.

[NorthShoreWx]

So, are there any statistics to compare the number of TV mets who call AGW a scam vs the number who blame every major storm on AGW? I would expect no less from a science minded publication like Rolling Stone. At least they correctly pointed out the dangers of posting pictures of cats on facebook.

I don't agree that TV mets should be using their 2 minutes as a bully pulpit about global warming. Aside from the already exisiting array of daily appeals to reduce our carbon footprint, drive efficient cars (or better yet bike or walk to work) use efficient appliances, etc., what changes from day to day about GW the way the weather does? I think we can spare 2 minutes for todays weather.

I believe that it isn't only the deniers that are politicizing AGW.

[NorthShoreWx]

PS There are no truths about future AGW. There are theories. Some of those theories are supported by computer simulations; they could very well be correct. Or maybe not exactly. The OP wants TV mets to evangelize his vision of the truth.

[Jonger]

this is a useless source--it's talking about newborn death rates. it's totally inapplicable to the discussion at hand.

I was responding to a quote that was addressing human deaths due to heat waves in a warming world. Considering our newborns worldwide are far more likely to die of hypothermia, its very applicable. Nice try discrediting another opposing viewpoint, like you are fond of doing.

[tacoman25]

which ties back to my point that researchers are indeed positing that climate change may be a driver in extreme weather scenarios. overstating the case is a lot different, policy wise/information wise, than denying AGW exists.

If your concern is people who are not experts in the field spreading disinformation to the public, then overstating possible links with weather and climate change could be just as damaging. Just mentioning AGW in connection with weather in general is something meteorologists should be more hesitant about, as that is not their field of expertise and there is so much uncertainty as far as meteorological connections anyway.

[ORH_wxman]

it's a nice neat conclusion to draw, but it's simply not true. the deniers outnumber the people who report accurately on AGW.

How do you know this?

Do you consider someone reporting that anthropogenic global warming made Hurricane Sandy more likely as reporting accurately on AGW?

I do not. It is pure speculation. The media is flooded with stories like this that are not supported by peer review science.

As for your earlier comments. I said I agree that reporting "denier" claims is a bad practice and should be stopped. The article's main point was about this and stopping inaccurate reporting on climate science. I agree with that. However, lets not pretend that inaccurate reporting of climate science is limited to those making "denialist" claims. The article never mentions the other side of the coin such as TV mets trying to link a tornado in New York City to global warming or linking 3 KU snowstorms in 2010 to global warming.

[tacoman25]

global warming is not a 'belief' or an 'opinion'. TV mets who are deniers should be discredited. science is not an opinion.

and this is the biggest problem with this subforum: WAY too many people who think global warming is an 'opinon' that you hold.

You're missing the point. People can have scientifically incorrect opinions/beliefs. Their field of science is not climatology. And as far as how exactly AGW is affecting weather, or how it will affect weather in the future, there are many beliefs and opinions and theories about that, but there is no exact answer from science.

As I'm sure you are well aware, science may not be an opinion, but scientists are people who do indeed have different opinions about science-related stuff.

You are basically arguing that any scientist in any field who does not hold the same views on AGW that you believe they should, should be "discredited" (whatever that means in real terms...you are talking about TV meteorologists, for chrissake - are you suggesting they all be fired?).

[tacoman25]

strawmen.

read my post, above.

Old, very tired copout. I am so sick of seeing this over-used, default response from people who clearly are not actually considering the points presented. Most of the time, it represents intellectual laziness and close-mindedness, to be quite frank.

It is not a "strawman" to point out that not every scientist is going to have the same opinions on things outside of their field, and it doesn't necessarily mean they can't do their job correctly.

In addition, you failed to answer how you think TV meteorologists should be "discredited" if they don't hold what you deem to be scientifically-correct beliefs on climate change. And where do you draw the line? Do they just need to express belief in AGW (that it is indeed happening) or do they need to go further to gain the necessary approval to do their job?

[ORH_wxman]

more TDIT.

http://www.climatech...March_2010).pdf

emphasis added

http://tigger.uic.ed...Doran_final.pdf

emphasis in original

http://profmandia.wo...-blows/#more-91

A sample size of 121 is supposed to represent our nation's TV weathercasters? There could easily be a non-response bias in there. In addition, some of the key questions are worded with IPCC in front of them which can be confusing...whether the question is asking if you think the climate has warmed or if you are agreeing with the IPCC's magnitude/reasoning for the warming. Someone doing a quick survey could easily fail to make the distinction.

But for the sake of argument, lets take the study's numbers at face value. This tells us nothing about who is actually reporting on climate science which was your original assertion:

"the deniers outnumber the people who report accurately on AGW."

Does this mean only TV weathercasters who deny that climate change is occurring? Or does this include random blogs by non-TV mets on the internet. Also is a "denier" only referring to people who deny climate change is occurring? Or does it also refer to people who deny that natural variation causes extreme events?

[Jonger]

Old, very tired copout. I am so sick of seeing this over-used, default response from people who clearly are not actually thinking through the points presented. Most of the time, it represents intellectual laziness, to be quite frank.

It is not a "strawman" to point out that not every scientist is going to have the same opinions on things outside of their field, and it doesn't necessarily mean they can't do their job correctly.

In addition, you failed to answer how you think TV meteorologists should be "discredited" if they don't hold what you deem to be scientifically-correct beliefs on climate change. And where do you draw the line? Do they just need to express belief in AGW (that it is indeed happening) or do they need to go further to gain the necessary approval to do their job?

Wait, shes calling out strawmen after using the newly minted "TDIT" forum jab?