"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." - Leslie Kaufman
A meteorologist from AccuWeather stated that "it is more likely that the planet is cooling" and that he "distrusts the data."
He is only one of the several other meteorologists who think likewise. Accoding to a survey done by George Mason University, only about half of the surveyed weather casters (571) believed global warming was occurring, and less than believed that the climate change was due to human activities.
Because weather casters dominate communication channels to the public, the disagreement between climate scientists and meteorologists is getting huge political and academic attention. (56% of the Americans trusted meteorologists more than news media or public figures. ) Several deem this dominance as "dangerous" and several are working to shrink the divide. For example, Yale and the National Environmental Education Foundation are working hand in hand to close the gap with research and educational forums.
It basically comes down to this: “'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?'” -Bob Hensen, a science writer for University Corporation for Atmospheric Research.
5 comments:
Hm. Well, you pretty much just summarized an article. I'm kinda wondering what you think about it.
Certainly weather casters should not be the ones you trust to tell you about long term scientific studies - they just aren't scientists. They are media personnel.
I am far more inclined to trust scientists, but how do they tell the public about their study results? Through the media, of course. I think that it is also a good idea to both look at a variety of studies done by unaffiliated organizations, and to look at who exactly sponsors the scientists involved in the study.
To Leslie Kaufman: He distrusts the data? I don't think that it is fair to "distrust" the data unless you have matching evidence proving it false, or at least a beginning of such evidence. He seems to just be stating a personal belief. Provide some good evidence, and I will be far more inclined to believe, or at least consider, your beliefs.
-Ilan Seid-Green
I agree with Ilan- when it comes down to who's qualified, weather forecasters basically fall into the category of entertainers. The article itself states that about half of all TV forecasters have a degree in meteorology. I am extremely disinclined to believe a meteorologist compared with a climatologist on the subject of climate change, which involves LONG TERM weather predictions, not short term.
Additionally, this article is a little sneaky in the way it presents its facts. It states that 56% of all Americans trust meteorologists more than news media or public figures. Sure, I would trust them too-if it were an issue of reporting tomorrow's weather.
I think its more reliable to believe scientists rather than meteorologists. If you look at a graph there are several occasional dips in the temperature over a course of years that make it seem like the earth is cooling. I think meteorologists are just seeing this little dip in temperature and concluding that global warming is not happening.
But maybe this is the case. Maybe the efforts environmentalists have put in lowering carbon emissions all over the world are starting to take some effect and a little bit of global cooling is occurring now.
-Yuzo Yanagitsuru
I think that regardless of what meteorologists say, the pollution we as humans are putting into the environment isn't good to begin with. Sure, maybe, just maybe, they AREN'T the cause of global warming, but sure enough, these pollutant are in some way or another hurting either us or the planet in general. I think that people need to stop focusing on the affects of pollution on the environment, and focus on reducing them without thinking about their effects. If we spend too much time thinking about what effects could occur, we might forget about the problem in the first place.
But Preston, we have limited resources. Knowing how each pollutant affects the nation or the world allows us to know where we can place our resources. By knowing what pollutants affect what, we can figure out what the biggest threat is to us, and combat that effectively. It would be great if we had the resources to just simply start reducing every pollutant, but that just isn't possible right now with the technology, manpower;etc that is available right now.
-Yuzo Yanagitsuru
Post a Comment