Professional Bowlers Question "Scientific" Consensus on Global Warming

Sorry, my hyperbolic title for an NYT story that ran yesterday:

Among Weathercasters, Doubt on Warming

"The debate over global warming has created predictable adversaries, pitting environmentalists against industry and coal-state Democrats against coastal liberals.

But it has also created tensions between two groups that might be expected to agree on the issue: climate scientists and meteorologists, especially those who serve as television weather forecasters.

Climatologists, who study weather patterns over time, almost universally endorse the view that the earth is warming and that humans have contributed to climate change. There is less of a consensus among meteorologists, who predict short-term weather patterns."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/30/science/earth/30warming.html

Joe Romm at Climate Progress gets credit for this very responsible hammering of both TV weathercastmeteoropseudoclimatologists and the NYT for lending them credence:

In yet another front-page journalistic lapse, the NY Times once again equates non-scientists — Bastardi, Coleman, and Watts (!) — with climate scientists

"The NYT still reaches millions on unsuspecting people expecting to be informed on the key issues of the day. And this is what passes for front-page journalism in the former paper of record:



Huh. People who don’t actually study the climate and aren’t actually scientists have less of a firm grasp of the overwhelming scientific evidence on human-caused climate change. Stop the presses, clear page one, get me Clark Kent and Lois Lane on rewrite!"

http://climateprogress.org/2010/03/29/climate-scientists-meteorologists-bastardi-coleman-watts-new-york-times-leslie-kaufman-false-balance/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+climateprogress%2FlCrX+%28Climate+Progress%29

it was a piece exploring, and to some extent condemning, the influence weather people have on the public understanding of climate. It clearly said most meteorologists have no understanding of long-term climate patterns, but they still talk about it as if they do.

It's hardly giving credence to a "real" debate over global warming between the "weather girl" on Channel 3 and climatologists, but is doing exactly the opposite.

The title is, "Among Weathercasters, Doubt on Warming".

"Weather" has virtually nothing to do with "Climate". The NYT is irresponsible for implying it does.

The headline was accurate (there is doubt amongst weathercasters) and designed to get people to read the article, like most headlines are. Yes, like any headline, things could be read into it depending upon one's own prejudices.

But, it's not their problem if people are too busy, lazy, or stupid to read the article.

(Or insert their own prejudices into the article)

What the hell are you talking about? :wtf:

You know quite well that 10 people can read an article and could come up with 10 opinions on what it "really" said. Some of the differences are small, but on occasion things can get really messed up.

For some reason, it seems to be most common around here with NPR and NY Times pieces-- I have no idea why, but suspect some people expect more "leftist" opinion than they get from them. And then complain when it isn't there even if the piece is balanced.

...anymore than the title "Among Economists, Doubt on Warming" would imply that economics has a lot to do with warming.