This is from a website which doesn't seem to understand the difference between journalism and propaganda.

"the biggest question about climate change - substantially human-caused or not?"

It doesn't make much difference whether it's human caused or not. What makes a difference is whether it can be human controlled or not.

Mr. Dawson's making excuses before the results of the survey are released. Sounds like they are not what he expected or wanted. Can't wait to read the surveys in full, without the misguided commentary by Mr. Dawson.

Gee whiz, guys. TV weathercasters are not climatologists. They are meteorologists! And some aren't even that. They are good looking beefcake and twinkies who think they know weather. Who cares what they think. (unless your name is Cullen). Remember, climate and weather are two different things. Just like meat loaf and hamburger. C'mon, what's the matter with you? They should just stick to forecasting the weather. And leave the climatology to the politicians...er um...I mean the Sierra Club....uh oooh.....I mean Al Gore....ummm...I mean the professional climatologists on the left wing/IPCC/Jim Hansen payroll.

By the by, Brett. Again, have to re-iterate. I am not amused with this forecast! In mid June, 2008 I am now running a space heater in my office. I WANT MY SUMMER BACK!!!!

Reply: yea Oiz. I figured you would hate the weather for this week. Hey, The days start getting gradually shorter this weekend.

DENY DENY DENY THE GLO-BULL WARMING LIE!!!!!!!

It's great to be skeptical and wonder and educate yourselves on the details. What's not great is if those in power and those with the $ decide it doesn't suit their purposes, so they don't educate themselves or others on the facts and they actually edit scientific findings to suit their dogmas (sound familiar?)

Another factor that TV weathercasters may not wish to discuss, is that they typically have trouble forecasting the weather 2 days from now and are therefore incredilous that long range forecast of the climate could ever be made.

What they are over looking is that CO2 has a scientifically reproducable impact on the heat retention properties of the atmosphere.

In addition, the amount of predicted warming is slight compared to hourly, daily and seasonal temperature variations.

Finally, the global warming forcast is extremely vague: "It's going to be a few degrees warmer on average in 40 years with increased precepitation is some, but not all places."

"Sea levels will rise a few millimeter each year and the amount of ice will decrease."

Why wouldn't they be. After all TV weathercasters see time and time again how difficult it is to correctly predict the weather accurately over periods of time as short as 5 days or less. Yet the climatologists who have no practical experience in predicting the weather claim to be able to accurately predict the global average temperature a century in advance. That sort of arrogance makes a person want to LOL.

Don't Panic,

"It doesn't make much difference whether it's human caused or not. What makes a difference is whether it can be human controlled or not."

If we could control the climate then you have to ask yourself who gets to decide what temperature we set the thermostat at. After all people living in places like Canada or Russia might like to have it set a couple of degrees warmer and people living in the tropics might like it to be set a couple of degrees cooler.

This sounds more like a sales campaign than a search for scientific truths. TV weathermen are mostly skeptics so let's "educate" (indoctrinate) them into our way of thinking. But first, let's insult them and call them stupid and uneducated.

If the AMS was really interested in finding the scientific validity of AGW they would welcome scientists whose views rejected the theory. Instead, they have embraced the politically poisoned IPCC version of climate change. We already know that the IPCC has gotten it wrong when they accepted Mann's Hockey Stick without challenging its accuracy. That's pretty shoddy work on the part of a group who claims to be the best and brightest in the world of climate science.

If the AMS was intersted in genuine education for their members they would invite the leading scientists among the 31,072 who have signed the following petiton which states, in part:

"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the forseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

You can read the entire petition here:
http://www.petitionproject.org/

Maybe the skeptical TV meteorologists have done their homework and concluded that you cannot subscribe to a theory based almost entirely on fatally flawed computer simulations of earth's climate. After all, they deal with real data every day and they know how inaccurate computers can be. If so, then they are not as dumb as the AMS thinks they are.

But, if you are an AGW true believer, just think of the power you would command if you could recruit all of the TV meteorologists to the cause. The authors shouldn't criticize religious fundamentalism when their religion is AGW and is based on faith, not science.

Hey Oiz,

Yeh, let's have all the skeptic-denier-climatologist-wannabees make all the decisions since they have all the education, background, knowledge and experience necessary to tell us what is really going on. Who needs degrees in meteorology/climatology when we can learn everything we need to know about climate research on the web.

Maybe you can convince Exxon-Mobil to fund scholarships for the Exxon-Mobil School of Climate Skeptics. Just sign in and send your hard earned money to ICECAP.US. In 2 short months you earn your Phd from the Chief-Denier Department and can publish your own research papers (co-authored by John Coleman - the founder of the Weather Channel) on the ICECAP.US web site on such topics as "Computer Models are all Bunk", "Melting Arctic Sea Ice is Really Caused by an Increasing Polar Bear Population Emitting Higher Levels of CO2 and Methane", or "The Correlation of Everything, Including the Kitchen Sink, Works Except for CO2".

JIM T
The arrogance of some people continue to astound me. Anyone who is skeptical or asks questions is labeled an uniformed idiot or a religious zealot. Thats really funny coming from a group of people who's spokesman is a Al Gore.

jim t.

Yeah, Adamant, it must be a conspiracy instigated by those evil Republicans and BIG Oil!!

Hey, I do have some tin foil hats for you and your friends, just in case.

It seems to me if weathercasters are skeptical, that's something we should respect, not explain away. People like Drs. Gray, Singer, and Bastardi have my respect and I look at what they say with interest, unlike others who make a profession of denial.

Nonetheless, from my own observation of weather trends over the last 5 decades, it seems to me odd that those who present the weather ignore the preponderance and increase of disastrous events. The use of key buzzwords like global cooling identifies people who are hooked in to a machine whose parts are out of date.

As someone who only recently starting watching regular TV, network forecasters appear to me to have accepted climate change and moved on, like rational human beings.

The most telling statement is "Longer-term climate science is still a relatively new field."
While admitting to the world that this is a very young field they forgot to mention the caveat of , "..and completely unproven."
Up until the last 30 years climate research was all theoretical and it really didn’t matter if they should include this proxy or throw that proxy out. Their postulates had no impact on society. (Kind of like how fast could a tyrannosaurus run? Nice idea for a debate but if they got it wrong it matters not.) So the folks in this very small field became “experts” without actually knowing if they were right or not. There were not challenged because it meant very little. Now that they are telling the world to change many folks in other sciences started to read, question and think. The more we read the more we are amazed at the lack scientific principles being used. Conjecture and supposition is not science fact. Having read their articles and looked at their “peer review” process many are beginning to say this lacks scientific credibility. As such we are beginning to question the very dubious "science" their theories are based on and becoming more vocal when answers to legitimate questions are not forthcoming. If climate science wants respect I would suggest you become a science and quit whining about all the questions.
1. Have an honest peer review process instead of a clich� of cronies reviewing each others works.
2. To the reviewers I suggest you actually read the articles and clean up the grammar. Obfuscation only tends to raise questions about the articles actual worth.
2. Quit using peer reviewed qualifiers in all your works and then postulating gloom and doom based on previous paragraphs using “If” , “maybe”, “could be” and “possibly”.
3. Have your programs and methods validated from those outside the field in an open and transparent way.
4. If your statistical methods are challenged answer the questions instead of saying, “Why should I?”
5. Open your code so it can be looked at.
6. Explain why and answer questions with logic. Prove why you are disregarding real data and instead replacing it with statistically generated computer guesses.
7. Explain and validate why previous data is constantly being revised.
8. Quit confusing the legitimate issues of pollution, renewable energy, conspicuous consumption, and population control with the cuase of AGW. They can be mutually exclusive.
9. Quit using “consensus” as the magic wand to make nonsense seem valid.

If you do these seemingly simple tasks maybe others with knowledge of scientific principles will actually start to believe. Until then skepticism from many will remain and begin to grow louder from all.

I believe Mr. Dawsons comments could use some deconstructing. Here goes,

--Many TV weathercasters have no background in climate science or degrees in meteorology.

Translation: They are too stupid to understand climate.

--There is little discussion between TV weathercasters and climatologists.

Translation: We have not yet enlightened these rubes on the subject of climate.

--Many TV weathercasters were not satisfied by answers to some of their questions when climate scients presented data in last year's AMS meeting.

Translation: THEY questioned US? How dare they.

--Since most TV weathercasters have very little time preparing their own short term forecasts they just do not have time to learn about the latest scientific developments in regards to long-term climate.

Translation: They are too lazy to take the time to read our propaganda errr studies.

--Some TV weathercasters think that climate change policies will hurt the economy and a
a few are putting fundamentalist religious beliefs first.

Translation: Achtung: Christians verboten.

--There is a disdain from TV weathercasters who are predicting the weather for those who pontificate about what their climate models show.

Translation: They hate us because we are so brilliant.

--Some TV weathercasters are skeptical only because they feel they have asked questions and raised issues then told to be quiet and this is the truth.

Translation: They questioned us and we told them to stick it. Whats wrong with that?

Hope these translations help.

If they're skeptical it's because they're too stupid, too busy, or both!
How typical a response.
Skepticism is healthy, but these morons want blind faith.
Maybe their skepticism lies in the fact that they see every day how hard it is to get a 48 hr. forecast right and therefore have little faith in a 50 year one!!

I'm a DENIER...
Oh well I have company now.
I love the explanations for skeptics..
reminds me of a bad ad they used to run in my area.
Guy comes home and finds his car insurance has been canceled, a voice says
"canceled insurance? due to tickets, accidents OR JUST BAD LUCK?"
like someone else was responsible.

The problem with GW's skeptics is fundamental.
They do not belong to the faithful cult of man made GW, period.
Unless Al Gore sprouts wings and gains a halo they won't be converted by calling them names, saying they are idiots, only "tv weathermen (and ladies)" or getting paid off by energy companies.
The case for GW is weak, and getting weaker as the data gets better.
That's not surprising, they never had enough climate data to make a decent baseline to start.
For goodness sakes some the cultists are still arguing that variables in solar output have no impact on their theories!
Lord help us after November because McCain and Obama both have been riding the Al Gore tour bus , "Disaster Is Here NOW..HONEST...NOT KIDDING!! Don't ask for Proof and Take it on FAITH!"

Oh PLEASE>>>>>>>>>

Adamant wrote:

It's great to be skeptical and wonder and educate yourselves on the details. What's not great is if those in power and those with the $ decide it doesn't suit their purposes, so they don't educate themselves or others on the facts and they actually edit scientific findings to suit their dogmas (sound familiar?)

Actually, it sounds like global warming dogma you're criticizing. The IPCC, Hansen, et al, have altered data, reject contradictory studies and suppressed critics by withholding funding to studies that do not support the predetermined verdict of AGW.

You see, it only takes one fact or one study to topple the entire AGW house of cards. This is why AGW is a cult and not science. It requires you to believe unquestioningly and you had better not contradict your betters!

nice picture brett of the "anvil" of what appears to be a serious cumulus nimbi as indicated by the well developed mammatus features...has that for meteorology 101?...as to why a "consensus" of meteorologists are skeptical? perhaps it has something to do with 1) having to work with weather modeling daily, 2) understanding the climatologists' manipulation of historical climatic datasets to produce a fever, 3) having had to take some science courses involving earths climatic and geologic history as well as 4) an understanding of the limitations of predicting the future thru practical experience on a daily basis...if your not sitting in some tenured government sponsored chair pontificating imminent doom making a grab for taxpayer funding, who better than a weather peer, would be the first to smell a climate rat...that picture is perfect for the article, it hints there is a storm brewing for the AGW scam...have a nice day, dudes!!!

They failed to co-opt the meteorologists into being the propaganda arm of the AGW crowd so they have to belittle them. Personally, I trust any meteorologist more than I do a certain rocket scientist and a lot more than a journalist cum politician - not to mention the computer modellers who have more knowledge of bits and bytes than climate. Another study to consign to the rubbish bin.

>>Remember, climate and weather are two different things.

Yes, oiznop, they are, and what you and I are experiencing is just weird weather. It's truly unfortunate that "global warming" has become such a buzzword when all of the models used to support what might be called the "anthropogenic climate change hypothesis" indicate that while global mean temperatures will indeed increase, some areas will increase more than others and some will actually experience cooling as global circulation patterns (both atmospheric and marine) change.

A better gauge as to whether or not climate change is taking place might be the relative frequency of "weird" or "unseasonable" weather. Strange weather will always be with us, but if the climate is changing, then by definition (climate = average weather) the local averages will be changing, and this should show up as an increase in record events.

Misguided commentary?? I must have read the wrong article. Yeah, if it's not what you want to read or hear, certainly it must be manipulated, made up or misguided.

This is misguided? (an excerpt from the article)

Knight summed up his own view of climate change this way: "There's no question that warming is going on. To say it's a hoax is to deny the data. To say it's all human-caused is foolish, too."

Common sense suggests that both factors are in play, he added. "Then the question is, to what degree? How do we differentiate? The more that folks are willing to admit that, we'll get to a good policy decision and there will be less polarization."

Makes sense to me. I don't see how this story is misguided. Did you read the whole article Bob? Maybe you could explain how it is misguided?

Brett, could you go into a bit more detail about what you mean by "a good deal of atmospheric science eduaction/professional background"? Thanks.

Reply: yes, BS or higher degrees in atmospheric science and many years of professional weather forecasting experience.

What! Someone skeptical of global warming? I dare they! I mean c'mon it the middle of June and its 3.15 p.m and the temp is all the way into the upper 50's, ice wouldn't form for another 26 degrees. Good grief also, what would a meteorologist know about climate, thats Al Gores department.

Upon reading further, does anyone else find this Certified Broadcast Meteorologist Program from the AMS to be a bit disturbing?

Admittedly, I am a skeptic and am quite wary of all things related