TV Weathermen -- the Carbon Lobby's "Useful Idiots"

TV weatherman John Coleman wrote that global warming “is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming: It is a SCAM.” Twenty-nine percent of 121 meteorologists agreed - not that global warming was unproven, or unlikely, but that it was a scam.  Just 24 percent of them believed that humans were responsible for most of the change in climate over the past half century [and] half were sure this wasn’t true.



Many of the names on Senator James Inhofe’s list of “Scientists” who dispute global warming are actually TV weathermen. Being a weatherman requires no knowledge or radiative forcing, how to measure atmosphetic CO2, or even know what a greenhouse gas is. They have no scientific training beyond how to read weather maps and reports.

It’s worth reporting some of the people who qualify to be called “scientist” under this definition: Willard Scott, Al Roker, and David Letterman.

You assume here that the dissenting weathermen include those that are meteorologists. It might be revealing to run a check to see just how that does split. Because as we know very few, if any, serious scientists are disputing just how real global warming is.

I am not going to waste my time further researching Inhofe’s list. I did that over a year ago; others have done it before and since. Despite all the work put into that over the past few years, Inhofe still refuses to acknowledge and correct the obvious errors in his document.

“you mean weatherpeople, since there are women who deliver the weather”
I do not recall any names on Inhofe’s lists of “weathermen” who are women. You’re welcome to search his document, find different results, and report them back.

“degrees in Meteorology.”
Are you addressing specifically a degree in “Meteorology,” or perhaps “Broadcast Meteorology?” Sen. James Inhofe counts Steve Baskerville, who is a TV weatherman in Chicago, as a scientist. I do not. Baskerville’s formal training is a Certificate in “Broadcast Meteorology” from Mississippi State University. If you sincerely believe that this individual should be counted as a scientist for the purposes of expressing an expert opinion on climate change, then please come to his defense.

I can understand weatherpeople not making reference to global warming during a weather forecast (hard to assign daily weather to long term global trends), but to hold such unenlightened views in general? Yikes!

An interesting part of the article states “ ‘Since the White House is behind it, it’s political,” [weatherperson Harvey] Leonard told the Post.” He was referring to a White House-sponsored event to bring meteorologists up to speed on global warming.

Is that the mind-set these days? That as soon as government is behind something, it becomes political and therefore untrustworthy? How else can authoritative, or at least somewhat legitimate public education take place? Seat belts are safer. Smoking is bad. Don’t drink and drive. Etc. Are these “political” topics, or just common sense being promoted by our elected officials? Crazy.

Good point made by Rick. If we can’t convince the weathermen, then we have no chance of convincing the general population. John Coleman is airing a special on San Diego area’s KUSI this Thursday evening at 9 PM describing global warming as “the biggest SCAM ever”. This only confuses the lay person way beyond belief and adds fuel to the PR damage being done.

So let me get this straight…TV weatherpeople can say whatever they want to thousands on the air, while Harper has a gag order on the real scientists from speaking their minds…that’s a level playing field

Just as weather is not climate, a weathercaster is not a climatologist. A lot of the ignorance probably comes from an inability to see the forest for the trees. The ideological vehemence, however, probably stems from deeper causes, such as the fact that many forecasting careers have traditionally been rooted in the military. A new study, funded by the National Science Foundation and sponsored by the American Meteorological Society, National Weather Association, and the Radio and Television Digital News Association, is attempting to shed more light on the issue.

And most tv weatherpeople have undergraduate degrees at best. There are lots of colleges where you can graduate with an undergraduate science degree and still have a minimal understanding of science. Thousands of partying frat boys (and sorority girls) have demonstrated that fact beyond dispute!

Anyway, what sort of scientific training/backgrounds do Anthony Watts or John Coleman have?

And as far as the most vocal “skeptical” weatherpeople are concerned, perhaps the most appropriate term isn’t “weatherman” or “weatherperson”, but “weather bunny”.

To see a “weather bunny” with Watts/Coleman technical expertise at work, watch this video (skip to 1:35 or so to start):

Yep – as far as Watts and Coleman are concerned, “weather bunny” pretty much nails it in terms of their scientific expertise. They may not be good looking enough to qualify as true “weather bunnies”, but they certainly have the “weather bunny” technical chops.

And yes, I’ve read some of Watts’ material over at his web-site. Among other things, he thinks that you can deduce trend information from a histogram! He really is that clueless.


“Of course since we have a rising temperature trend since 1979, I would expect all 4 metrics to be more distributed on the positive side of the histogram as a given. But the real test is how well they match.”

“Weather bunny”, indeed!