ScienceDaily for March 29th reported that quite a few meteorologists are
interested in reporting on climate change. Meteorologists seem to have an
acceptance by the public that scientists don't have. In order to make this
change, meteorologists will have to change their perspective, as Look at the
long term brought out.
Climate change is a long-term effect (not just in years but in decades,
centuries, and longer), and meteorologists don't see the long-term because they
are absorbed in the ups and downs of daily changes. Meteorologists should be
ashamed of themselves for speaking out on this topic, because they have the
wrong viewpoint for recognizing climate change. It's like looking at the ups and
downs of real data or the trends as shown by running averages of the data.
It sometimes takes a degree to decipher data in "such complex systems." Believe
tv weather forecasters at your own risk...liking planning for that back yard
barbeque based on a 7 day forecast. It's entertainment...all the death and
destruction in the first 12 minutes of the newscast is nothing but a life
support system to get the viewer through commercials before the highly rated
weather forecast which is, indeed, highly rated, but often wrong.
Temperature measurment is pretty easy. We have millions of data points around
the entire globe and the average global temperature is rising in perfect synch
with CO2 levels.A 5 year old could figure that out. You just don't
want to believe it. You continue to fabricate a scientific controvercy where
there is none. Stop being tools.
Heidi Cullen's attempt to silence global warming critics. Like so many involved
in global warming her response was "toe the party line or we'll get rid of you".
Meteorologists have a better understanding of what is involved in predicting the
weather than the average person, and no financial interest in getting research
money to continue studying global warming.
It is foolish to trust someone just because they have a degree. I trust good
data, (which is not as simple to come by as most people often think), but even
then finding the proper interpretation of the data can be extremely difficult in
such complex systems.
Isaac Asimov wrote one of the best science fiction trilogies of all time back in
the 80s, THE FOUNDATION SERIES. The basic premise was the use of
psychohistorians who could predict the broad swathes of the universal path of
the human history. Like today's controversy over weather patterns, Asimov
supposed that while it was impossible to predict individual weather patterns
(such as with meteorologists), he believe that when the human population taken
together, it would be possible to predict the general, overall trend of human
history just as what climatologist are predicting in the general level of the
world's temperature. While it may be impossible to predict an individual
meteorological event at a specific time and place, it might very well be
possible to posit a specific worldworld average temperature in a decade or two.
Did you not catch the paragraph that states that half of all TV weather
forecasters do not have degrees in meteorology, hence they are not
meteorologists.I'll trust a climatologist over a TV weather
forecaster with no training beyond broadcast school.
The title of this article creates a false diachotomy, engaging in an attempt
to malign to qualifications of meteorologists. The fact that
climatologist accept the notion of man-made global warming tells us nothing of
its validity. This is no more surprising than that physical anthropologists
accept biological evolution. In both disciplines the entire discipline is built
around the notions embodied in the world-view mentioned. Modern climatology is
built around the basic assumption that human's can and do control the climate.