Why Don't TV Meteorologists Believe in Climate Change?
Inside Climate News / By Katherine Bagley
May 23, 2012 |
Photo Credit: Kelly Garbato
In recent years, the world's scientists have begun to show that climate change is altering the magnitude and frequency of severe weather, and polls say a majority of Americans now link droughts, floods and other extremes to global warming And yet, this country's TV weather forecasters have increasingly
taken to denying evidence that warming is affecting weather—or is even
happening at all. Only 19 percent accept the established science that
human activity is driving climate change, says a
2011 report by the
George
Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication, making TV
meteorologists
far more skeptical than the public at large. That's a troubling statistic for some climate advocacy groups, which
recently launched the "Forecast
the Facts" campaign. Those advocates worry that Americans hungry for
information on global warming will seek answers from popular and
enterprising TV forecasters who reject the climate science
consensus—especially as social media use grows. "Their denial has the potential to have a huge impact on their
viewers," says Daniel Souweine, co-founder of the nonprofit
Citizen Engagement Lab and
campaign director of Forecast the Facts. Climate skeptic forecaster James
Spann, for instance, a TV meteorologist in Birmingham, Ala., has
almost 98,000 Facebook "likes" and 60,000 Twitter followers, more than
any local TV talent in the nation,
finds one report. A recent
tweet has Spann attacking Bill Nye, the TV host and science
educator, for connecting hurricanes to climate change. "Somebody needs
to tell this stooge the difference between weather and climate." "Local weathercasters are sort of rock stars ... and surveys show
that the general public cares about what their weathercaster thinks of
climate change," says
Edward Maibach, director of the George Mason University Center for
Climate Change Communication and lead researcher on several surveys of
meteorologists' global warming views. But why TV meteorologists veer so far from the opinion of climate
scientists is something researchers haven't yet polled. Experts
interviewed for this story cite three main reasons for the disparity:
their different levels of confidence in climate models, meteorologists'
lack of education in global warming science and personal politics. Distrust in Climate Models About 97 percent of climate researchers believe that climate change
is real and caused by humans, according to a
recent report
from the National Academy of Sciences. Most working meteorologists fall
into that camp, says
Keith Seitter,
the executive director of the American
Meteorological Society (AMS). TV forecasters make up a small
fraction of meteorologists. In 2007, the 14,000-member AMS
released a
statement acknowledging the scientific consensus that human activity
is causing the world's climate to warm. The AMS is the nation's largest
meteorology membership organization. Seitter says most U.S. meteorologists are researchers, such as state
climatologists or those who work at NASA, the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), universities and nonprofit
institutions. About 10 percent are TV weather reporters, he notes. They are "unusually skeptical" and "pretty vocal ... [This] has
caused some conflict within the AMS." Some members have dropped their
membership because of the society's stance on global warming, Seitter
says. Experts say one answer to the broadcaster/scientist disparity lies in
their different levels of confidence in computer models. While the models TV meteorologists use to forecast weather use the
same "physics" as those scientists use to predict long-term climate
trends (for instance, the same calculations for how the atmosphere and
biosphere interact), the data they plug into them is quite different,
explains Keith
Dixon, a research meteorologist at NOAA, who focuses on climate
variability. Just using different data produces scenarios with vastly different
accuracies, he says. TV meteorologists generally plug in very localized parameters like
current wind speed and sea surface temperatures, which provide clues to
rainfall and cloud formation in the immediate future, in a particular
area. Weather models are usually only accurate in predicting five- or
seven-day forecasts—if that. A common belief of broadcasters is that
climate models are just as fallible. "The forecasters live in the real world. They know models in general,
and they know these models don't even get tomorrow right," says
Joseph D'Aleo, a
well-known climate skeptic and the first director of meteorology at The
Weather Channel. "They aren't going to trust them to be right about what
is going to happen in 2100." Polls show that a vast majority of
weathercasters, about 75 percent, distrust models of climate change. But Dixon says that mistrust isn't warranted. He explains that climate scientists crunch different data that plays
a large role in determining long-term climate variability, such as the
movement of heat within the oceans or the amount of sunlight reaching
the Earth's surface. "We're making projections about the overall
climate," Dixon says, and that bigger-picture data is what makes
long-term predictions so accurate. Plug in current wind speed into those
models, he suggests, and the accuracy plummets. "It's a bit disappointing that this confusion over the models still
exists." Seitter of AMS agrees there is a "disconnect" over the models and
says it "can be easily fixed." "Simply teaching [broadcast meteorologists] about the differences
[between weather and climate] models, about how they are essentially the
same, but used in different ways, can do a lot to clear up any
skepticism." State of Meteorology Education Most research meteorologists have graduate degrees in meteorology or
related fields like atmospheric sciences. About half of TV forecasters
have bachelor degrees in meteorology, says Maibach of the George Mason
University Center for Climate Change Communication. The other half is
composed mainly of journalists who were assigned the weather beat. Prominent broadcast meteorologists who are skeptical of climate
science fall into both categories. For instance,
John Coleman, co-founder of The Weather Channel and weatherman for
KUSI-TV in San Diego—who has described global warming as "a fictional,
manufactured crisis and a total scam"—has an undergraduate degree in
journalism. Others, including San Antonio meteorologist
Bill Taylor
and Cleveland forecaster
Mark Johnson, both vocal climate skeptics, started with
undergraduate degrees in journalism or related fields like
communications and later obtained meteorology certifications from
Mississippi State University, a three-year distance learning program.
Still others, like
Brian
Bledsoe of KKTV in Colorado and
Andre Bernier of WJW in
Cleveland, also both known skeptics, hold undergraduate degrees in
meteorology. But even if all TV forecasters had degrees in meteorology would it
matter? "There are virtually no undergraduate meteorology programs in
the country that have a significant climatology component," says Bud
Ward, editor of the Yale
Forum on Climate Change and the Media, part of a Yale climate
initiative that has recently turned its attention to this issue. "You can go through your whole degree without ever having taken a
course on climate." Even those programs considered top in the nation—such as Penn State
and the University of Oklahoma—are only now adding global warming
science to their curricula, though they have long taught the
fundamentals of how the climate system works. Bill Brune, an
atmospheric chemist and head of Penn State's Department of Meteorology,
says that students are exposed to concepts of climate science in two
required classes—a survey course on atmospheric sciences and an
upper-level undergraduate course called Radiation and Climate. "In these and other courses, students are shown the changes in
atmospheric composition and their impacts on atmospheric science and
climate. The words 'climate change' ... do not necessarily appear on the
course descriptions, but they are in the course syllabi or lectures." Brune says changes are afoot. The course Climate Dynamics, currently
an elective for meteorology students, was approved as a requirement
starting next year. The class will cover climate change and its human
influences, Brune notes. Most undergraduate programs, including the University of Oklahoma,
have added optional climate-related coursework during the past few
years, a decision that some experts say could portend an increase in the
number of forecasters who accept human-caused climate change. D'Aleo, formerly of The Weather Channel and a former professor of
meteorology at Lyndon State College of Vermont, says that introducing
climate science into curricula will bias students against the belief
that long-term climate change is driven by natural forces. "When I was a professor years ago, we taught students how to think,
not what to think," he says. AMS and the National Weather
Association (NWA), the other major U.S. professional organization
for meteorologists, offer optional broadcast meteorology certification
programs. To obtain AMS certification, forecasters have to take courses
on a range of topics from atmospheric physics to remote sensing, to pass
a written exam and to have their on-air work and forecasts reviewed. The AMS doesn't require climate science coursework to earn
certification. Nor does the society test forecasters' global warming
knowledge during the exam. "There is no discussion of changing the
requirements to include [climate change]," says Seitter of AMS. The
certification program is geared toward making sure broadcasters have
adequate knowledge of forecasting, "since this is what these guys are
getting paid to do." Seitter notes that forecasters are encouraged to take global warming
courses on their own. To get NWA certification, TV meteorologists similarly have to pass a
written exam and have their work critiqued by the society. Applicants
are not tested on their climate change knowledge. Souweine of Forecast the Facts believes the AMS and NWA programs need
to change. "A certification for meteorologists that has no requirement
for them to be able to speak intelligently and in an informed way about
climate change seems like an empty certification," he says. Souweine says the campaign plans to put pressure on both societies to
require such coursework. But whether or how a weathercaster chooses to discuss climate change
may come down to something harder to influence, says Maibach: their
personal politics and beliefs. In recent years, climate change has become a partisan lighting rod,
with the majority of Democrats, about two-thirds, believing that Earth's
temperature is rising from human activity, with only one-third of
Republicans agreeing with them, say polls.
No candidate who was vying for the GOP presidential nomination
admitted to the scientific consensus, even if they supported climate
policy in the past. Meteorologists are not immune, says Maibach. "Climate change has
become so politically polarized that someone's party affiliation is now
the dominant lens through which people come to look at the issue—even if
they have scientific training." Maibach says he believes that personal politics are so central to
views on climate change that he is considering asking TV meteorologists
to state their party affiliations in upcoming surveys. Audience Expectations Weathercasters are often the only people at their stations with
scientific backgrounds. As a result, they often engage in on-air
chit-chat with news anchors on science issues, including global warming.
They also write articles for the station's website and are frequently
invited to give guest lectures at schools and various community
organizations. For many Americans, their TV weatherperson is the only
climate-related authority they encounter each day. "Most Americans are never going to know who the world's major climate
scientists are, but they know who their weatherperson is," Souweine
says. According to a survey by Maibach and colleagues, more than
three-quarters of TV meteorologists say they have discussed the topic of
global warming either on or off air. The Yale Project on Climate Change Communication has hosted workshops
across the country that connect TV weathercasters with climate
scientists. During the day-long event, climate scientists discuss the
link between climate change and weather, address the latest science and
help meteorologists understand how global warming will affect their
regions. "We go into this realistically," says Ward, the editor of the
forum and workshop organizer. "We know we are not always going to change
people's opinions, so that is not our goal. We just want to provide them
with accurate information and give them avenues to ask questions." But some, like D'Aleo, who is no longer on the air but runs a website
called ICECAP, which promotes views
of climate skeptics, say global warming should be off limits to
forecasters. "It is not our role," he says. "And in fact, many station managers
have told forecasters not to do it, because if you take one side or
another it will alienate a percentage of your audience and you might
lose them." In 2010, D'Aleo did an
on-air segment
with Coleman in San Diego, in which he accuses climate scientists of
manipulating temperature data on global warming. Souweine of Forecast the Facts says that silence isn't an option.
"Viewers do care about this ... They feel it is the job of the news to
tell them what is going on, and [climate change] is the biggest weather
story of the 21st century. "When they don't mention climate change while reporting on another
set of record high temperatures or unprecedented severe weather,"
Souweine continues, "it is like a news reporter talking about a string
of murders and not mentioning there is a suspect in custody." InsideClimate News intern Kathryn Doyle contributed reporting to
this story. Republished with permission of InsideClimate News, a non-profit, non-partisan news organization that covers energy and climate change—plus the territory in between where law, policy and public opinion are shaped.
|