US Meteorologists Are Not Qualified To Make Long Term Assessments On Climate Change

Updated On

We may collect a share of sales from items linked to on this page. Learn more.

Although the American Meteorological Association is split on global warming, only 19% believe that human influences are the sole driver of climate change as reported in a 2011 survey. Compare the 19% with 82% who say that while the climate is changing, many claim that it is due to natural causes, or human and natural causes combined.

Many meteorologists who broadcast the weather conditions on TV avoid using the term global warming in their telecasts and are therefore reported to be the source of skepticism towards it by the public. Additionally, there are a vocal minority, such as John Coleman, the founder of the Weather Channel, who claim that “global warming is the greatest scam in history,” and continue to perpetuate this claim while blogging to the public.

Bob Breck, a weatherman at Fox Channel 8 in New Orleans, claims that the minority voice has been largely ignored because it has been dominated by people with PhDs and who are in academia versus the operational meteorologists in which he considers himself to be. Beck states, “I believe in global warming cycles and we have been in a warming cycle. What I don’t believe is that the driver of this current warming is carbon dioxide.”

It is reported by Deborah Zabarenko that,

“most weathermen and women have degrees in meteorology—the study of how Earth’s atmosphere behaves in the short term—but few have studied climate science, which examines the wider system where weather occurs, [unlike climate scientists of which] 95% are convinced that climate change is occurring and that human activities, particularly the burning of fossil fuels are a key driver.”

Given that meteorologists have studied climate change in the short term and haven’t studied it in accordance to the rigors of climate science, the members of the American Meteorological Society are not qualified to make long term assessments on climate change. It is therefore difficult to accept Breck’s claim that carbon dioxide is not a significant driver to climate change contrary to what has been asserted by climate change scientists as well as the mounting evidence that they have provided that carbon dioxide, particularly the burning of fossil fuels, is a key driver and something that we are best advised not to ignore.

  • Samir Goel

    Samir is a freelance writer who lives in Delta, BC and who enjoys spending time with his family and friends. He is very happy to be able to talk about green initiatives and enjoys his time posting at greener ideal.

3 thoughts on “US Meteorologists Are Not Qualified To Make Long Term Assessments On Climate Change”

  1. Oh nooooo, meteorologists have only looked at the temp data over the past century- plus, and have discovered that the gravy train science just doesn’t addup. That includes the asinine claim that weather events are unprecedented in recent claimed extremism.

    It’s why some people look at some PHD’s an exclaim, “Yah, piling it higher and deeper.” it’s like saying, only a medical specialist can diagnose what ails you. How many times have medical experts been proven wrong! Follow the money.

  2. Hello Scottar,

    Thank you very much for your comment. Your point is well taken in that climate scientists like medical specialists are not perfect. Nevertheless, with this being said, I guess it will always be a matter of perspective because one can take your point and equally turn it on its head and ask would you have a gp (family doctor) tell you what ails you when he or she is not qualified to do so? This is not to say that the gp like the meteorologists are not important and should not have their assessment equally heard, however, it does mean that if either of them want to be recognized and qualified as someone who is an expert in the field, he or she would need to take further training to have that recognition. Instead of meteorologists making so much noise and crying foul over the whole thing why don’t they go and take the training and get that certification to give their opinion in an equally recognized way–this would be similar to a legal assistant who can literally do almost everything a lawyer can but is not allowed to present cases in court because they do not have their llb. Is this fair, well, I don’t know, I would think so because the more knowledge one has the more likely he or she is to be better at looking at their specific area.


What do you think? Leave a comment!