I accidently ran into a survey recently that was conducted last year which gathered their opinions:
http://www.climatechangecommunication.org/images/files/TV_Meteorologists_Survey_Findings_(March_2010).pdf
It seems pretty legit from what I saw and it's quite user friendly as you can actually see the various questions and results for each. It also got me thinking that perhaps their opinion would be quite useful because they deal with things such as phenomena of the atmosphere, right?
In the past, I'm pretty sure that I have seen people write on forums (and even here) that their views aren't worth much when it comes to this subject. If that is true, then this doesn't seem right to me after I've been looking at them more closely. In fact, here is one definition of a 'meteorologist' that I saw:
"Meteorology is the interdisciplinary scientific study of the atmosphere that focuses on weather processes and forecasting (in contrast with climatology)".
What are your thoughts? Do their views have some weight when it comes to discussion of Global Warming/Climate Change?
How do you know that pegminer? I'm curious...
But Dana, like the textbook definition goes, climate is just weather averaged out over a (usually) long period of time. So surely their views have SOME weight at least? Because they and climate scientists are both sub-disciplines of atmospheric science. It seems to me you (for example) are just basically hand waving what ever they say away and treating them as completely worthless because they don't have the title of climate scientist.
http://www.climatechangecommunication.org/images/files/TV_Meteorologists_Survey_Findings_(March_2010).pdf
It seems pretty legit from what I saw and it's quite user friendly as you can actually see the various questions and results for each. It also got me thinking that perhaps their opinion would be quite useful because they deal with things such as phenomena of the atmosphere, right?
In the past, I'm pretty sure that I have seen people write on forums (and even here) that their views aren't worth much when it comes to this subject. If that is true, then this doesn't seem right to me after I've been looking at them more closely. In fact, here is one definition of a 'meteorologist' that I saw:
"Meteorology is the interdisciplinary scientific study of the atmosphere that focuses on weather processes and forecasting (in contrast with climatology)".
What are your thoughts? Do their views have some weight when it comes to discussion of Global Warming/Climate Change?
How do you know that pegminer? I'm curious...
But Dana, like the textbook definition goes, climate is just weather averaged out over a (usually) long period of time. So surely their views have SOME weight at least? Because they and climate scientists are both sub-disciplines of atmospheric science. It seems to me you (for example) are just basically hand waving what ever they say away and treating them as completely worthless because they don't have the title of climate scientist.