Do you agree with Heidi Cullen that meteorologists should be educated in climate science?

Question

Here is what Cullen (who is a Weather Channel meteorologist with a PhD in climatology) said:

"If a meteorologist has an AMS Seal of Approval, which is used to confer legitimacy to TV meteorologists, then meteorologists have a responsibility to truly educate themselves on the science of global warming.

Meteorologists are among the few people trained in the sciences who are permitted regular access to our living rooms. And in that sense, they owe it to their audience to distinguish between solid, peer-reviewed science and junk political controversy. If a meteorologist can't speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn't give them a Seal of Approval."

http://www.weather.com/blog/weather/8_11392.html

Note that she did not say "if a meteorologist doesn't think humans are causing global warming...", she simply said they should be able to speak to the fundamental science of climate change.

Do you agree?

For those who say no, I expect that you won't be quoting or referencing meteorologists (i.e. Coleman, Gray, Bryson, etc.) with regards to global warming.

Jello - you're making my point for me. Gray is a meteorologist and hurrican expert. He has no degrees in climatology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_M._Gray

qu1ck80 - they have the option to study climatology, but if they just want to be weathermen, there's no need. As we've said many times before, meteorologists study weather, not climate.

Origin - not surprisingly your unsupported statement is wrong. Cullen simply said her statement was not political in nature. She did not backtrack in any way.

By the way, Kukla is retired.

Answer 1

That would be a great way to shut up idiots such as John Coleman, but is an unfair burden to place on the rest of the field in maintaining their careers.

Maybe an additional certification is in order -- say some sort of "American Climatology Society" seal of approval. This way both media outlets and weather forecasters have the option of deciding what degree of experience / education they want to offer their audiences.

Answer 2

When I read the question without reading the rest of the details, the thoughts that immediately came to mind were more or less what Cullen is saying.

Whilst I don't think it should be a pre-requisite for meteorologists to be educated in global warming per se, I do think it's important that, should they choose to pass comment on the subject of global warming, they know what they're talking about.

Maybe things are different in the US, but here in the UK it's normal for meteorologists to know a good deal about climatology and similarly, for climatologists to know a good deal about meteorology - the two things are often studied together with one being the primary subject and the other being a secondary one. I can't think of a UK meteorologist (there's quite a lot of them), that doesn't have a good understanding of global warming and climate change.

Returning to your specific point, certainly if a TV weather presenter ventures into talking about global warming then they should, most definitely, have a sound understanding of the science of GW (unless it's just a passing comment, opinion or something like that).

That same principle should apply to anyone who is addressing an audience or holds a position of responsibility or authority. If it's reasonable to expect that they know what they're talking about then they should indeed know what they're talking about. Often it's a legal requirement, someone can't pass themselves off as being a doctor or a priest for example, unless they genuinely are.

Answer 3

Meteorologists are TV reporters who happen to focus on weather. To a large degree it's an acting job; one that does require familiarity with weather terminology, but one that doesn't require in-depth knowledge of climatology (although in Cullen's case she chose to acquire that additional knowledge).

However, since viewers don't distinguish between meteorologists and climatologists, the fact that TV weather reporters know more about weather than viewers makes them appear to be more knowledgeable than they are.

Meteorologists are free to hold whatever beliefs the want to hold, but their position of apparent authority carries a burden of responsibility.

Meteorologists definitely should leave the science to the scientists and not mislead the public by using their position of apparent authority to air their personal faith.


It's interesting that the Singer, Christy, et al report was published by the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society. Are British weather reporters required to have much more climatology knowledge than in the U.S., or does calling their publication the Journal of Climatology just make them feel more like scientists?

Answer 4

No. It's not part of their job description. Meteorologists study weather, climatologists study climate. Forcing climate science on meteorologists would only serve to blur the distinction between weather and climate and perpetuate confusion and misconceptions among TV viewers about warm weather being proof of global warming and cool weather being proof of global cooling. Keep the two subjects separate and let meteorologists do their job.

Answer 5

Yes, if meteorologists want to speak intelligently and publicly on climate issues then its only logical that they should study climatology first.. Even doctors (g.p.) refer some cases to specialists because their patients' well being are their first priority.

Answer 6

definite it has grow to be a faith and Al Gore is the pope of the cult.think of of ways plenty funds specific communities will make off of the hype.think of of all that government funds going to "examine".as nicely there is in basic terms plenty you're able to do ,inspite of each thing whoever controls the climate controls the international.worry is the excellent political motivator. climate replace is a factor of the character of the planet.trouble-free sense is to have sparkling capability yet until eventually there's a greenback in all of it that happens is communicate,communicate and extra communicate.government policies,fines and effects(gotta get that bailout funds someplace) We relatively desire sparkling air and water .i'm the unique recycler and that i do no longer waste capability only like many individuals.i take advantage of capability and don't choose for the "guilt" holiday of doing so. I surely have a situation with Gore the guru who flies around a gas guzzling jet.So does Queen Pelosi who opted for a bigger one to fly to and fro to California.remember her asserting she desires to save the planet,yeah she flies we walk.we can all initiate with the help of utilising the recent capability saving easy bulbs. Oh I forgot they're those with mercury in them.Oh,nicely feels like a sturdy thought on the time. i assume you all heard that some genius flesh presser needed to tax cow farmers for any that very own extra advantageous than one hundred for emitting "methane gas" yeah this is actual.will we bottle it relatively?Or on 2nd concept deliver some from the bull to that flesh presser as he's conscious the B.S. whilst he sees or smells it.

Answer 7

Huh, what??? Don't they get educated in climate science when they go through college to become a meteorologist??? That seems absurd no to have any kind of background in that!!

Answer 8

Yet someone who's credentials are as golden as Dr. William Gray would have his taken away because he doesn't believe in science that no one can prove.

Quotes from Dr. Gray:

Dr William Gray, a pioneer in the science of seasonal hurricane forecasts, told a packed lecture hall at the University of North Carolina that humans were not responsible for the warming of the earth.

"We're brainwashing our children," said Dr Gray, 78, a long-time professor at Colorado State University. "They're going to the Gore movie [An Inconvenient Truth] and being fed all this. It's ridiculous."

"We'll look back on all of this in 10 or 15 years and realize how foolish it was," Dr Gray said.

"The human impact on the atmosphere is simply too small to have a major effect on global temperatures," Dr Gray said.

"It bothers me that my fellow scientists are not speaking out against something they know is wrong," he said. "But they also know that they'd never get any grants if they spoke out. I don't care about grants."

[Edit] And what would be your point? That people would have to believe in global warming before they got their meterology certification?

How would you be able to tell the difference? Would you make skeptics wear large bright yellow six pointed stars? This sounds so familiar, like it's already happened once before...........

Answer 9

Yes, I agree. having knowledge is always good and meteorology and climatology are closely related in that sense i agree too.

Answer 10

Nope and that's just one more reason why I don't watch the weather channel!!