The following article from the New York Times is a very interesting read, as
it describes the clear divide between meteorologists -- like your regular TV
weathermen -- and trained climate scientists.

Personally, I have to agree with the general consensus of climate scientists
-- which is that Global Warming is real -- the reason being that these
weathermen are making the very same mistake that people who claim that
earthquakes are not increasing in frequency.

That mistake -- as I have explained before -- is that you cannot take
short-term data of a few years, or even a decade, or even several decades,
and then make long-term predictions when it comes to either earthquakes, or
the weather. You need to look at the larger long-term picture, and at
long-term data, because Earth age -- and Earth developments -- are not the
same as human age, just as cat or dog age is not the same as human age.

In short, to really understand what the Earth is doing, and what the global
climate is doing, you need to examine extensive data spanning at least a
century or more in order to arrive at meaningful conclusions. The more data
we examine, the clearer the picture becomes.

In contrast -- as this article points out -- most weathermen deal with data
usually spanning a week at best. That may work for weekly weather forecasts
-- and even then, they are not always right -- but that approach simply will
not work with long-term climatic changes on the Earth.


Among Weathercasters, Doubt on Warming

By LESLIE KAUFMAN - NYT

March 29, 2010


The debate over global warming has created predictable adversaries, pitting
environmentalists against industry and coal-state Democrats against coastal
liberals.

But it has also created tensions between two groups that might be expected
to agree on the issue: climate scientists and meteorologists, especially
those who serve as television weather forecasters.

Climatologists, who study weather patterns over time, almost universally
endorse the view that the earth is warming and that humans have contributed
to climate change. There is less of a consensus among meteorologists, who
predict short-term weather patterns.

Joe Bastardi, for example, a senior forecaster and meteorologist with
AccuWeather, maintains that it is more likely that the planet is cooling,
and he distrusts the data put forward by climate scientists as evidence for
rising global temperatures.

"There is a great deal of consternation among a lot of us over the
readjustment of data that is going on and some of the portrayals that we are
seeing," Mr. Bastardi said in a video segment posted recently on
AccuWeather's Web site.

Such skepticism appears to be widespread among TV forecasters, about half of
whom have a degree in meteorology. A study released on Monday by researchers
at George Mason University and the University of Texas at Austin found that
only about half of the 571 television weathercasters surveyed believed that
global warming was occurring and fewer than a third believed that climate
change was "caused mostly by human activities."

More than a quarter of the weathercasters in the survey agreed with the
statement "Global warming is a scam," the researchers found.

The split between climate scientists and meteorologists is gaining attention
in political and academic circles because polls show that public skepticism
about global warming is increasing, and weather forecasters -- especially
those on television -- dominate communications channels to the public. A
study released this year by researchers at Yale and George Mason found that
56 percent of Americans trusted weathercasters to tell them about global
warming far more than they trusted other news media or public figures like
former Vice President Al Gore or Sarah Palin, the former vice-presidential
candidate.

The George Mason-Texas survey found that about half of the weathercasters
said they had discussed global warming on their broadcasts during chats with
anchors, and nearly 90 percent said they had talked about climate change at
live appearances at Kiwanis Club-type events.

Several well-known forecasters -- including John Coleman in San Diego and
Anthony Watts, a retired Chico, Calif., weatherman who now has a popular
blog -- have been vociferous in their critiques of global warming.

The dissent has been heightened by recent challenges to climate science,
including the discovery of errors in the 2007 report by the United Nations'
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the unauthorized release of
e-mail messages from a British climate research center last fall that
skeptics say show that climate scientists had tried to suppress data.

"In a sense the question is who owns the atmosphere: the people who predict
it every day or the people who predict it for the next 50 years?" said Bob
Henson, a science writer for the University Corporation for Atmospheric
Research, who trained as a meteorologist and has followed the divide between
the two groups.

Mr. Henson added, "And the level of tension has really spiked in recent
months."

The reasons behind the divergence in views are complex. The American
Meteorological Society, which confers its coveted seal of approval on
qualified weather forecasters, has affirmed the conclusion of the United
Nations' climate panel that warming is occurring and that human activities
are very likely the cause. In a statement sent to Congress in 2009, the
meteorological society warned that the buildup of heat-trapping gases like
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would lead to "major negative
consequences."

Yet, climate scientists use very different scientific methods from the
meteorologists. Heidi Cullen, a climatologist who straddled the two worlds
when she worked at the Weather Channel, noted that meteorologists used
models that were intensely sensitive to small changes in the atmosphere but
had little accuracy more than seven days out. Dr. Cullen said meteorologists
are often dubious about the work of climate scientists, who use complex
models to estimate the effects of climate trends decades in the future.

But the cynicism, said Dr. Cullen, who now works for Climate Central, a
nonprofit group that works to bring the science of climate change to the
public, is in her opinion unwarranted.

"They are not trying to predict the weather for 2050, just generally say
that it will be hotter," Dr. Cullen said of climatologists. "And
just like I
can predict August will be warmer than January, I can predict that."

Three years ago, Dr. Cullen found herself in a dispute with meteorologists
after she posted a note on the Weather Channel's Web site suggesting that
meteorologists should perhaps not receive certification from the
meteorological society if they "can't speak to the fundamental science of
climate change."

Resentment may also play a role in the divide. Climatologists are almost
always affiliated with universities or research institutions where a
doctoral degree is required. Most meteorologists, however, can get jobs as
weather forecasters with a college degree.

"There is a little bit of elitist-versus-populist tensions," Mr. Henson
said. "There are meteorologists who feel, 'Just because I have a bachelor's
degree doesn't mean I don't know what's going on.' "

Whatever the reasons, meteorologists are far more likely to question the
underlying science of climate change. A study published in the January 2009
newsletter of the American Geophysical Union, the professional association
of earth scientists, found that while nearly 90 percent of some 3,000
climatologists who responded agreed that there was evidence of human-driven
climate change, 80 percent of all earth scientists and 64 percent of
meteorologists agreed with the statement. Only economic geologists who
specialized in industrial uses of materials like oil and coal were more
skeptical.

Seeing danger in the divide between climate scientists and meteorologists, a
variety of groups concerned with educating the public on climate change --
including the National Environmental Education Foundation, a federally
financed nonprofit, and Yale -- are working to close the gap with research
and educational forums. In 2008, Yale began holding seminars with
weathercasters who are unsure about the climate issue and scientists who are
leading experts in the field. The Columbia Journalism Review explored the
reasons for the split in an article this year.

Conversely, the Heartland Institute, a free-market research organization
skeptical about the causes and severity of climate change, is also making
efforts to reach out. At its annual conference to be held in May in Chicago,
the institute tried without success to put on a special session for the
weather predictors.

"What we've recognized is that the everyday person doesn't come across
climatologists, but they do come across meteorologists," said Melanie
Fitzpatrick, a climate scientist for the Union of Concerned Scientists.
"Meteorologists do need to understand more about climate because the public
confuses this so much. That is why you see efforts in this turning up."



Jeff Snyder, SysOp - Armageddon BBS  Visit us at endtimeprophecy.org port 23
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your Download Center 4 Mac BBS Software & Christian Files.  We Use Hermes II


--- Hermes Web Tosser 1.1