Forecasting Denial: Why Are TV Weathercasters Ignoring Climate Change?

[hurricaneschwartz]

I don't know how many TV mets have commented in this thread yet, but it doesn't seem like many. So here's my 2 cents.

HOAX? Nearly 1/3 of my "colleagues" believe AGW is a hoax. This is not a misprint. It is not a joke. HOAX? It sure seems that has to be a product of bad sampling, but I've met a LOT of TV weather people who believe this. HOAX is clearly a political word, and has no parallel on the "other side". HOAX?

Many TV mets (I'll just use that term, since anyone can and does call themselves one) are very uncomfortable talking about a subject they either don't understand or don't follow closely. Others feel intimidated by the loud minority who complain any time we try to connect ANYTHING with AGW. It's fine with me if those folks stay silent.

As one of the few (and possibly only) scientists a lot of our viewers ever hear from, I feel an obligation to learn as much as I can about AGW. This applies to answering viewer questions, giving talks, etc. I also have become more comfortable over the years writing blogs, tweeting, and even doing the occasional story on-air. There have been few, if any complaints.

HOAX? I'm ashamed of that part of my profession.

Glenn

[CT Rain]

I don't know how many TV mets have commented in this thread yet, but it doesn't seem like many. So here's my 2 cents.

HOAX? Nearly 1/3 of my "colleagues" believe AGW is a hoax. This is not a misprint. It is not a joke. HOAX? It sure seems that has to be a product of bad sampling, but I've met a LOT of TV weather people who believe this. HOAX is clearly a political word, and has no parallel on the "other side". HOAX?

Many TV mets (I'll just use that term, since anyone can and does call themselves one) are very uncomfortable talking about a subject they either don't understand or don't follow closely. Others feel intimidated by the loud minority who complain any time we try to connect ANYTHING with AGW. It's fine with me if those folks stay silent.

As one of the few (and possibly only) scientists a lot of our viewers ever hear from, I feel an obligation to learn as much as I can about AGW. This applies to answering viewer questions, giving talks, etc. I also have become more comfortable over the years writing blogs, tweeting, and even doing the occasional story on-air. There have been few, if any complaints.

HOAX? I'm ashamed of that part of my profession.

Glenn

Agreed, Glenn.

It's sad that there are so many TV "meteorologists" out there who flat out deny any global warming exists and that do, in fact, think it's a hoax. It's hard to believe. There are a number of weathercasters out there who know very little about meteorology in the first place but that's a different story.

I was quoted in a local paper today in a story about climate change and how it may force many local ski areas to close over the next 100 years. I posted the article on my Facebook page and was immediately (within 30 seconds) trolled by someone who denied any warming existed, said it was a fraud, then went on to post a litany of Anthony Watts/Joe Bastardi links, graphs, and charts. It makes having a conversation about the topic a challenge since there is such vitriol on both sides. It doesn't bother me to have that conversation even if a very small but very vocal minority doesn't like it.

It also helps, Glenn, that you and I work for a company that is not pressuring us in any way (on either "side" of the issue). I imagine that that is not the case with some smaller broadcast companies.

[The_Global_Warmer]

It does look like it would be very difficult to drop below 60.5.

What is the average temperature in STL for the rest of the month?

about 32.3F.

the 7th was +14 at an average of 51F

the 8th was +10 with an average of 47F.

the 9th is progged to be +12 at 47F.

Then the 10th and 11th at 32-33F so -3 to -4F.

The 12th around +2 at 37F

The 13th around +8 at 43F

The 14th around +11 at 46F

The 15th around +16 at 50F

Obviously the forecast can change. So that is not a definitive thing.

But running a very very very cold ending at 20F. Still wouldn't get us out of 2012 as being the warmest on record.

20F x 23 = 460.

21574.7 + 460 = 60.2F

On the flip side if we finish 35F the rest of the month.

35F x 23 = 805.

21574.7 + 805 = 61.1F

I am not trying to fight or anything. The local NWS office publishes updates a couple times a week. The TV Met's(I can't say I watch them everyday, but quite a bit, I catch the early morning and nightly news most days, haven't spoken of it as far as I have seen.

In fact most of the time it's banter with the News Host's about how lucky we are to get the warm weather. And how we will be paid back and the pay back with a visit from the "cold express" That is what I don't get. It's always like that. I don't think the implication is intentional but it's hard to say we are getting paid back when we go from insane wamrth, 30F above normal days to big warmth with 8-14F+ daily departures. Then we finally get paid with a couple days slightly below normal.

For instance we are currently 17.6F above normal for the month for the first 7 days. If that forecast verify's we will still be above 10F by day 15. I don't feel like adding it up but probably close to +13. That is around 47.7F. So this could be another big anomaly month, but that remains to be seen.

We have been faily normal for December over the last decade. I believe it's the 2nd coldest December on record here. And we had no days below 2F for lows. But ten days with single digit's for lows. Thanks to snow cover from Dec 12th to Jan 4th.

Our last bought with big time cold was December of 2000.

[LocoAko]

I don't know how many TV mets have commented in this thread yet, but it doesn't seem like many. So here's my 2 cents.

HOAX? Nearly 1/3 of my "colleagues" believe AGW is a hoax. This is not a misprint. It is not a joke. HOAX? It sure seems that has to be a product of bad sampling, but I've met a LOT of TV weather people who believe this. HOAX is clearly a political word, and has no parallel on the "other side". HOAX?

Many TV mets (I'll just use that term, since anyone can and does call themselves one) are very uncomfortable talking about a subject they either don't understand or don't follow closely. Others feel intimidated by the loud minority who complain any time we try to connect ANYTHING with AGW. It's fine with me if those folks stay silent.

As one of the few (and possibly only) scientists a lot of our viewers ever hear from, I feel an obligation to learn as much as I can about AGW. This applies to answering viewer questions, giving talks, etc. I also have become more comfortable over the years writing blogs, tweeting, and even doing the occasional story on-air. There have been few, if any complaints.

HOAX? I'm ashamed of that part of my profession.

Glenn

[ohleary]

seriously? you are making deniers equal to people who report that extreme events are related to global warming? climate scientists are extremely active in this area--it's a legitimate topic for TV mets to report on.

furthermore, the research has shown that in certain areas--extreme precip events, extreme drought, extreme heat waves--are indeed linked to AGW. the linkages between tornadoes and hurricanes is still unclear, if there even is one, but to imply that the there is no link between AGW and some extreme weather events is indeed disinformation, and accuse TV mets who include tornadoes and hurricanes in the group of spreading disinformation is pretty disingenuous. it's right out of the denier playbook, in fact, and I'd be pretty surprised to hear you admit you are a AGW denier.

why is "deniers" in quotes? they exist--they are not imaginary.

and I'm kind of flabbergasted that you would call TV mets reporting on actual science being done by reputable scientists as "disinformation". a

There's a difference between a slow increase in extreme weather events over several decades that can't be attributed to natural cycles and one event. Sure if you can prove that hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, heat waves, etc are increasing due to AGW and AGW only, fine. But saying any one event is due to AGW is ignorant and spreading misinformation.

[ohleary]

more strawmen.

climate and weather are linked. if a TV met is a denier, s/he has no credibility and is not professionally qualified to report on science.

Just one person's opinion is all that is. And it's fringe. Not sure why anyone here is arguing with her about this. She's apparently the only one who thinks this which says it all.

I agree with ORX, if my TV met was a denier, but gave accurate forecasts day in and day out, he's doing his job. And he shouldn't be talking about AGW anyway, it's not his field.

[tacoman25]

It's off-topic and not really that important to your point, Friv, but you were way too warm with your guesses for STL departures over the next few days.

What you said....

the 8th was +10 with an average of 47F.

the 9th is progged to be +12 at 47F.

Then the 10th and 11th at 32-33F so -3 to -4F.

The 12th around +2 at 37F

The 13th around +8 at 43F

These are all looking too warm, and the 10th and 11th especially...tomorrow will probably not get much above freezing at STL and should be at least a -11 or so anomaly, and the 11th is predicted at this point to be a -5 or -6 day, but could easily be colder with very cold low temps.

The only reason I point this out is that if you want to be viewed as more objective, it would help to post with some accuracy when it comes to things like this.

[tacoman25]

don't worry, I know you won't answer any of the questions I asked.

Why should anyone bother answering your questions when you have repeatedly failed to address ones to you, instead opting for cries of "strawman!!"?

[ohleary]

how is my opinion a fringe one? be specific.

so why are TV mets members of AMS? why did AMS elect a TV met as president in the past? why does the AMS publish articles about AGW and host panels at its annual meeting on AGW if mets have no business in climate science?

don't worry, I know you won't answer any of the questions I asked.

You are the only one on here that I see...or anywhere else for that matter...saying Mets who are deniers should be fired from their jobs.

A TV met is as much a climate scientist as a General Practitioner is a Neurologist.

[The_Global_Warmer]

It's off-topic and not really that important to your point, Friv, but you were way too warm with your guesses for STL departures over the next few days.

What you said....

the 8th was +10 with an average of 47F.

the 9th is progged to be +12 at 47F.

Then the 10th and 11th at 32-33F so -3 to -4F.

The 12th around +2 at 37F

The 13th around +8 at 43F

These are all looking too warm, and the 10th and 11th especially...tomorrow will probably not get much above freezing at STL and should be at least a -11 or so anomaly, and the 11th is predicted at this point to be a -5 or -6 day, but could easily be colder with very cold low temps.

The only reason I point this out is that if you want to be viewed as more objective, it would help to post with some accuracy when it comes to things like this.

I didnt guess. Those all came 100% directly from the NWS forecast page for St. Louis at the time I posted it.

but thanks for trying to spin any thing you can to make me look bad.

So in this case put it on the forecaster there. All I did was compare daily climo to the forecast at the time.

You didnt even think to ask but went right to assuming I pulled those numbers out of thin air.

FYI, fog undermined that forecast.

Ask anyone in the lakes/OV how fog and

cloudiness busts forecasts.

It doesn't matter now, you only posted that to try and put me in a negative light. And no matter what I say it suceeds to some extent.

The people who want any reason to discredit myself or AGW will ignore that the National Weather Service put those "GUESSES" out and run with friv is a bias alarmist.

So "Mission Accomplished".

[QVectorman]

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.

Hit the nail on the head.

We have too much other crap to deal with and most of us beg for 2 to 2:30 min for weather just to get the forecast in. We don't have time to cover AGW and the news directors and consultants would have our butts in the corner office right after talking about it. Most viewers don't have comprehensions skills beyond a fifth grader so that there pretty much limits the information you can give to them. We are literally LUCKY to put highs, lows and fronts on our maps or even take 30 seconds to explain a weather phenomena because its considered too in-depth. If NDs and consultants truly had their way it would be nothing but pretty numbers flashing forecasted high and low temps and a futurecast slide of radar. They hate current temps, almanacs and tolerate live radar. But research shows most people don't understand radar or forecasted radar slides. As far as the AMS, most mets are dropping out because of their outrageous yearly dues, lack of importance of the CBM and AMS seals anymore to obtain jobs and lastly, for their climate change statement. The AMS is quickly becoming obsolete among broadcasters as evident by the dwindling number in attendance at their yearly broadcast conference and the number of inactive people on the rosters.

[QVectorman]

You are the only one on here that I see...or anywhere else for that matter...saying Mets who are deniers should be fired from their jobs.

A TV met is as much a climate scientist as a General Practitioner is a Neurologist.

PS Wxtrick no one in TV gives two flying donkey tails about the AMS and no one will ever lose their job for being a "denier". Our managers could care LESS what the AMS has to say...trust me, I have had people use my CBM seal on air and reported it to the AMS and they contacted the parties involved and everyone pretty much said, yeah ok, and nothing changed...they kept using my seal. The AMS has no power to do anything but suck up our money in dues and outrageous fees for seals. Which everyone has pretty much started boycotting now. Some advice for the AMS if they wanted to keep the profession professional they should have cracked down on mail order degrees/certificates from MSU years ago. That opened the flood gate for non-degreed and mail order certificate mets and started their own demise of the Seal and CBM and the new found interest in the NWA who accepts ALL weather people-professional/hobbyist etc.

[The_Global_Warmer]

It's off-topic and not really that important to your point, Friv, but you were way too warm with your guesses for STL departures over the next few days.

What you said....

the 8th was +10 with an average of 47F.

the 9th is progged to be +12 at 47F.

Then the 10th and 11th at 32-33F so -3 to -4F.

The 12th around +2 at 37F

The 13th around +8 at 43F

These are all looking too warm, and the 10th and 11th especially...tomorrow will probably not get much above freezing at STL and should be at least a -11 or so anomaly, and the 11th is predicted at this point to be a -5 or -6 day, but could easily be colder with very cold low temps.

The only reason I point this out is that if you want to be viewed as more objective, it would help to post with some accuracy when it comes to things like this.

FYI...

As of this moment it is 29F in STL. The forecasted high is 35F. The city digital forecast has STL dropping to 27F in the next few hours and 27F again before mid-night tonight.

10th: That would be 35/27/31 VS the CLIMO at 44/28/36 = -5F anomaly.

You said -11F anomaly. So if we make 35F we would need to be 35/15/25 = -11F anomaly.

Like I said the original numbers were from the NWS page at the time. The ones progged right now are on the NWS page right now at 4:16AM. You call me out like this and post some stuff about a -11F anomaly in STL today, where on Earth would that come from?

As of right now for the next day on the NWS web site.

11th: 46/22/34 = -2.

You said at this point it was predicted to be a -5 or -6 day.

12th: 49/24/35 = +/-0(So they lowered it by 2F since I made the first post about it.)

13th: 53/32/43 = +8F(exactly the same as what they had a few days ago.

The 8th was +9, which is 1F below what they predicted and I posted here originally.

The 9th was +8 which is 4F below what they predicted and I posted here originally.

I don't know what you are trying to do by this except make me look silly. But besides the fact that I made no guesses and took the numbers directly from the NWS page.

I also said this. I can't see how you actually inferred I "guessed" at high's and low's on December 8th all the way out to the 15th calling it a forecast like it's my own as if I have any qualification's to make that kind of "forecast" or "guess".

Obviously the forecast can change. So that is not a definitive thing.

So what happens tomorrow when STL end's up no where near -11F for the day. Do you need a reminder to be objective so you don't look bad? I was so angry by you attacking at me when I first read this I didn't notice the -11F for tomorrow you posted.

But that's quite funny now.

[LocoAko]

Yeah... did any of the outrage posts read the article? It wasn't saying every met should talk about climate change, it was frowning upon those that do and spread denier lies, considering how many people they have the potential to reach.

[A-L-E-K]

Yeah... did any of the outrage posts read the article? It wasn't saying every met should talk about climate change, it was frowning upon those that do and spread denier lies, considering how many people they have the potential to reach.

lol, of course they didn't

[ORH_wxman]

seriously? you are making deniers equal to people who report that extreme events are related to global warming? climate scientists are extremely active in this area--it's a legitimate topic for TV mets to report on.

furthermore, the research has shown that in certain areas--extreme precip events, extreme drought, extreme heat waves--are indeed linked to AGW. the linkages between tornadoes and hurricanes is still unclear, if there even is one, but to imply that the there is no link between AGW and some extreme weather events is indeed disinformation, and accuse TV mets who include tornadoes and hurricanes in the group of spreading disinformation is pretty disingenuous. it's right out of the denier playbook, in fact, and I'd be pretty surprised to hear you admit you are a AGW denier.

why is "deniers" in quotes? they exist--they are not imaginary.

and I'm kind of flabbergasted that you would call TV mets reporting on actual science being done by reputable scientists as "disinformation". a

Who said I made them equal? Flat out rejecting global warming is a serious mishap and shouldn't be spread around. I have agreed with that point.

Linking events to AGW that have no scientific basis is also an egregious error and should be frowned upon too. That is disinformation. I am talking about specific events that have been linked to AGW on TV that have no scientific evidence (e.g. NYC tornado, a busy hurricane season, etc). Not ones that do. Why would we encourage the reporting of claims that have no scientific backing? All that does is give a bad reputation to climate science. Over-stating the effects of AGW without scientific backing is disinformation. Just like under-stating or denying the effects is disinformation. Sorry, it goes both ways.

[donsutherland1]

As one of the few (and possibly only) scientists a lot of our viewers ever hear from, I feel an obligation to learn as much as I can about AGW. This applies to answering viewer questions, giving talks, etc. I also have become more comfortable over the years writing blogs, tweeting, and even doing the occasional story on-air.

I believe the above snippet provides an illustration of the highest degree of professionalism. The open-minded willingness to push one's understanding and to become familiar with areas of emerging knowledge are examples of scientific and/or academic work at their finest. It is an approach that fosters continual improvement (and to me, it is no surprise that Schwartz is an invaluable asset for the Philly market).

Many in all fields, not just meteorology, fall short. They lock themselves into familiar simplifying assumptions that might well be obsolete in the face of new knowledge, place personal preference or ideology ahead of empirical data and objective examination, fail to see the proverbial big picture, overestimate one's knowledge of given phenomena (often dismissing contrary views), and ignore nuance/uncertainty, etc.

With respect to the opening message in this thread, I suspect that example of scientific integrity provided by Schwartz, more rigorous education on climate science in meteorology schools, better training on climate-related matters in broadcasting schools, and continuing professional education that deals with the latest understanding of climate science can begin to reduce the problem. It would be interesting to see if the problem is disproportionately confined to older meteorologists or if it is relatively uniform across age groups. The latter would be particularly worrisome, as it is that segment that should, in theory, have been introduced to a more advanced understanding of climate science.

[tacoman25]

FYI...

As of this moment it is 29F in STL. The forecasted high is 35F. The city digital forecast has STL dropping to 27F in the next few hours and 27F again before mid-night tonight.

10th: That would be 35/27/31 VS the CLIMO at 44/28/36 = -5F anomaly.

You said -11F anomaly. So if we make 35F we would need to be 35/15/25 = -11F anomaly.

Like I said the original numbers were from the NWS page at the time. The ones progged right now are on the NWS page right now at 4:16AM. You call me out like this and post some stuff about a -11F anomaly in STL today, where on Earth would that come from?

As of right now for the next day on the NWS web site.

11th: 46/22/34 = -2.

You said at this point it was predicted to be a -5 or -6 day.

12th: 49/24/35 = +/-0(So they lowered it by 2F since I made the first post about it.)

13th: 53/32/43 = +8F(exactly the same as what they had a few days ago.

The 8th was +9, which is 1F below what they predicted and I posted here originally.

The 9th was +8 which is 4F below what they predicted and I posted here originally.

I don't know what you are trying to do by this except make me look silly. But besides the fact that I made no guesses and took the numbers directly from the NWS page.

I also said this. I can't see how you actually inferred I "guessed" at high's and low's on December 8th all the way out to the 15th calling it a forecast like it's my own as if I have any qualification's to make that kind of "forecast" or "guess".

So what happens tomorrow when STL end's up no where near -11F for the day. Do you need a reminder to be objective so you don't look bad? I was so angry by you attacking at me when I first read this I didn't notice the -11F for tomorrow you posted.

But that's quite funny now.

As of 2 pm, the high at STL is 30. And they will drop below 27 before midnight.

And the anomaly yesterday ended up being +8, when the forecast you used had said +12. Clearly, your source has been running warm with the forecasts.

[QVectorman]

Wx trick basically said the ams should punish those that disagree or fire them. I was simply pointing out that it's obvious none of you have a clue how tv works except the two other on air Mets that replied. No one in tv management cares about agw nor giving anyone time to talk about it nor enforce disciplinary actions. What are they going to do? Take your seal? Oh we are scared since most people stopped paying for it anyways.

[ORH_wxman]

it doesn't--there is a qualitative difference.

weird to find out you're a denier at heart--but it explains why so much nonsense from denier sites is allowed to be endlessly posted here, even after it has been thoroughly debunked again and again by the posters here.

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.

[QVectorman]

This is like watching blind people debate the use of colors in a Monet

[The_Global_Warmer]

As of 2 pm, the high at STL is 30. And they will drop below 27 before midnight.

And the anomaly yesterday ended up being +8, when the forecast you used had said +12. Clearly, your source has been running warm with the forecasts.

the temp was 36f at mid night last night.

Did the NWS change how they track daily highs and lows?

Do you think they are going to just throw that out because the high will be at 1201AM?

Again my source is the NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE.

[ORH_wxman]

there is a difference between something that hasn't been proved yet and something that has been disproved and is being touted as fact.

your first impulse in this thread was not to criticize TV mets who blather on with denier nonsense, but to start the THEY DO IT TOO chant. that's telling.

So what was I denying again? You did said I was a denier at heart.

I pointed out what I thought was a bias in the article. TV weathercasters denying global warming and then trying to educate the public on the view hurts climate science. These claims of attribution where there is none hurt climate science too. Just because there are some legit attribution studies does not mean every form of extreme weather should be blamed on AGW.

Bad science is what it is. I'm puzzled as to why it always has to be one side or the other. I point out that both hurt the science and apparently I'm a denier.

[hurricaneschwartz]

So what was I denying again? You did said I was a denier at heart.

I pointed out what I thought was a bias in the article. TV weathercasters denying global warming and then trying to educate the public on the view hurts climate science. These claims of attribution where there is none hurt climate science too. Just because there are some legit attribution studies does not mean every form of extreme weather should be blamed on AGW.

Bad science is what it is. I'm puzzled as to why it always has to be one side or the other. I point out that both hurt the science and apparently I'm a denier.

Notice I will not call you a "denier". You seem more of a genuine "skeptic", who agrees with basic AGW theory, but are uncertain that it will be as bad as many say. Do I have that right?

I think the basic complaint is of the "false equivalence" of HOAX vs. attribution. For example, there are some top climate scientists who do connect hurricane intensity to AGW (Emanuel for one). And it is a legitimate area of future research. How many top climate scientists believe the whole thing is a HOAX? They might disagree with the "alarmist" nature of some, but that's far from HOAX.

Glenn

[tacoman25]

only because so many people, like you, didn't bother to read the article linked in the first post.

also, I'd appreciate it if you would find the posts where I said TV mets who are deniers should be fired. thanks.

You didn't say they should be fired outright, but you did strongly insiunate that they weren't fit to do their job. And if that is the case, shouldn't they be fired?

Just one example of what you said: "if a TV met is a denier, s/he has no credibility and is not professionally qualified to report on science"

[tacoman25]

the temp was 36f at mid night last night.

Did the NWS change how they track daily highs and lows?

Do you think they are going to just throw that out because the high will be at 1201AM?

Again my source is the NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE.

They were still 4 degrees too warm with the departure yesterday. Again, +8 not +12. And you are right, since they were still 36 at midnight that changes the departure for today (they were 32 at 1 am, so it was very close to being a much lower high). Still, it will most likely drop below 27 by midnight, and the -3 or -4 departure you mentioned will end up too warm, just like yesterday.

[QVectorman]

You didn't say they should be fired outright, but you did strongly insiunate that they weren't fit to do their job. And if that is the case, shouldn't they be fired?

Just one example of what you said: "if a TV met is a denier, s/he has no credibility and is not professionally qualified to report on science"

Thanks taco. I was going to point them all out but I noticed Will already did too! ;-)

[The_Global_Warmer]

They were still 4 degrees too warm with the departure yesterday. Again, +8 not +12. And you are right, since they were still 36 at midnight that changes the departure for today (they were 32 at 1 am, so it was very close to being a much lower high). Still, it will most likely drop below 27 by midnight, and the -3 or -4 departure you mentioned will end up too warm, just like yesterday.

When STL hit 74, 75. They were forecasting 68-69F 3-4 days before then made it up to 70F, and finally near the high on the day before.

Yes, I mentioned the forecasts from the NWS. If it verify''s to warm what does that have to do with me? And right now with the clock clicking the daily departure is -4F. It is still 31F at 8pm with the area still blanketed in clouds.

You don't care about the accuracy of there official forecasts. You surely wouldn't have tried to slander me if I posted those number's busting to cool and calling me bias and not objective.

Then you came back and said -11F for today. Why are you not talking about that and critiquing your own work? It's 31F now at 8PM and still cloudy. That -11F is likely to be the biggest bust in this conversation. But you are trying to call me out?

This is ridiculous and disappointing.

[ohleary]

I'd like to see the post where I said that, thanks.

agreed. but that's not what's under discussion in this thread.

climate and weather are linked. if a TV met is a denier, s/he has no credibility and is not professionally qualified to report on science.

True you didn't say that explicitly. But you believe he/she has "no credibility and is not professionally qualified to report on science" so I just took it one more step. If you believe this about a TV Met, then by extension you must believe they shouldn't be doing their job.

I don't think TV weathercasters should be reporting on AGW at all. No one is tuning in to hear about AGW, they want a weather forecast. Plus I'd guess a vast majority of weathercasters are either unqualified to or too politically biased one way or the other to give a fair treatment of the subject.

[ohleary]

Notice I will not call you a "denier". You seem more of a genuine "skeptic", who agrees with basic AGW theory, but are uncertain that it will be as bad as many say. Do I have that right?

I think the basic complaint is of the "false equivalence" of HOAX vs. attribution. For example, there are some top climate scientists who do connect hurricane intensity to AGW (Emanuel for one). And it is a legitimate area of future research. How many top climate scientists believe the whole thing is a HOAX? They might disagree with the "alarmist" nature of some, but that's far from HOAX.

Glenn

I get what you are saying...I heard it referred to as a hoax by nutjob Savage on the way to work tonight and it made me angry. Denying the earth's atmosphere is warming is delusional. But so is attributing one hurricane's strength or path, i.e. Sandy or Katrina, or any single weather event for that matter, to global warming.