Attack Of The Weathermen

The Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society conducted a survey of broadcast meteorologists on arious aspects of climate change (still a stupid term). The results were interesting to say the least.

Statement: "Respond to this IPCC conclusion: 'Most of the warming since 1950 is very likely human-induced.'"

Strongly Agree: 8%
Agree: 16%
Neutral: 25%
Disagree: 24%
Strongly Disagree: 26%

Statement: "Global climate models are reliable in their projections for a warming of the planet."

Strongly Agree: 3%
Agree: 16%
Neutral: 20%
Disagree: 37%
Strongly Disagree: 25%

Statement: "Global climate models are reliable in their projections for precipitation and drought."

Strongly Agree: 1%
Agree: 18%
Neutral: 29%
Disagree: 36%
Strongly Disagree: 16%

Statement: "Global climate models are reliable in their projections for local weather patterns."

Strongly Agree: 0%
Agree: 14%
Neutral: 25%
Disagree: 38%
Strongly Disagree: 24%

Question: "Respond to one TV weathercaster’s quote saying: 'Global warming is a scam.'"

Strongly Agree: 10%
Agree: 19%
Neutral: 26%
Disagree: 23%
Strongly Disagree: 22%

In many ways the last response is the most startling as only 45% of surveyed broadcast meteorologists felt comfortable saying Global Warming isn't an outright scam.

I have to say I see my own opinions mirrored by the majority view of these meteorologists.

Roger Pielke Sr. notes the response of the American Meterological Society has been to commision a "directed" interview survey which, I can already tell you before it has even taken place, will "contradict" the BAMS survey. How do I know that? Well, just look at the invitation:

I write to invite you to participate in a research study. This research is being conducted to understand how TV meteorologists educate their audiences about climate change. If you agree to participate, we will schedule an in-person or telephone interview with you. The interview will take approximately 60 minutes to complete. After the interview, we will ask you to help us access examples of educational materials (or broadcasts) that you have used to educate audiences about climate change.

How is this directed in any way at the 50% of meteorologists who wouldn't have been focusing on AGW as they don't think it is happening? The answer is, it isn't. They will get predominately those who have "examples of educational materials (or broadcasts)" to give the researchers. Why is that? Well, because if you give them such material you also agree to the following:

Because we would like to collect and share examples (on a website we will create) of your efforts to educate audiences about climate change, we are requesting that you participate as an identified participant. We will ask your permission before posting anything you have said, or any educational material materials you have given us, on our website. If you agree to the posting, we will credit you as the source by listing your full name and your current place of employment.

You can just imagine how skeptics will be treated once they can be identified by name and place of employment. This is the reason why we have anonymous polling in the first place, so that people can give their honest opinions without fear of negative consequences.

Oh, you can choose to remain anonymous, only then "...we will not post any materials you give us on our website."

Well, that is one way to get the results you are looking for.