Growing Public Skepticism About Climate Change Fuels Interest in Split Between Climatologists and Weathercasters
Except that it wasn’t. Coleman had spent half a century in the trenches of TV weathercasting; he had once been an accredited meteorologist, and remained a virtuoso forecaster. But his work was more a highly technical art than a science. His degree, received fifty years earlier at the University of Illinois, was in journalism. And then there was the fact that the research that Coleman was rejecting wasn’t “the science of meteorology” at all—it was the science of climatology, a field in which Coleman had spent no time whatsoever.
I don’t find it surprising that people trust their local weathercaster's reports. In all likelihood their meteorologist gives fairly accurate predictions on a daily basis, and they’d recognize him or her on the street. Climatologists, on the other hand, work with complicated models that forecast conditions tens or hundreds of years in the future, and most people probably couldn’t pick even a world-famous climate scientist like James Hansen out in a lineup.
I am surprised that more weathercasters don’t believe climate science. The New YorkTimes hints that part of the explanation may be resentment: climatologists have doctoral degrees and positions at universities or research centers; weathercasters are only required to have a college degree.
Whatever the reason, there are efforts underway to bridge the gap. The George Mason survey, for instance, was part of a National Science Foundation-funded research project on meteorologists. Researchers will incorporate the survey data into developing and testing 30-second, educational segments that weathercasters can use in their daily broadcasts to educate viewers about the link between predicted (or current) extreme weather events and the changing global climate.
In educating their communities about climate change, perhaps meteorologists, trusted and important sources, will better inform themselves, too.