Urging American Meteorological Society to Get Tougher on Climate Change

By: Forecast the Facts Release
By: Forecast the Facts Release

San Francisco, CA – January 20, 2012

A new campaign, Forecast the Facts (www.forecastthefacts.org), launches Sunday to pressure TV meteorologists to inform their viewers about climate change. The launch coincides with the kick-off of the American Meteorological Society’s (AMS) annual meeting in New Orleans, LA.

The campaign will deliver thousands of petition signatures that demand the AMS pass a strong statement on climate change. The current statement—drafted in 2007—is set to expire on Feb1. In the five years since, scientific consensus about climate change has grown even stronger, and the Forecast the Facts campaign is urging the AMS to reflect that consensus in their new information statement. The new statement, drafted by a panel of experts, requires approval by the 21-member AMS Council, which convenes on Sunday, January 22 at their annual meeting.

“This is an important moment in the history of the AMS,” said Daniel Souweine, the campaign’s director. “It’s well known that large numbers of meteorologists are climate change deniers. It’s essential that the AMS Council resist pressure from these deniers and pass the strong statement currently under consideration.”

In the coming months the campaign plans to launch a full-fledged initiative to educate and activate communities at the local level. Grassroots outreach efforts will include a robust and creative online and offline engagement campaign, including video, advertising, and activist tool-kits, among other interactive elements.

The issue of climate change denial among television weather reporters has gained increasing attention of late, especially with the release of a national study by George Mason University in March 2010. The study found that 63% of T.V. meteorologists think climate change is due to natural causes, and a full 27% think global warming is a scam.

The AMS is the leading national organization for meteorologists, with over 14,000 members. Its information statements are “intended to provide a trustworthy, objective and scientifically up-to-date explanation of scientific issues of concern to the public at large.“ According to the George Mason study, meteorologists trust information from the AMS more than almost any other source, including climate researchers, making the AMS statement on climate change a closely watched document in the meteorological community.

Recent increases in extreme weather have added further impetus for meteorologists to report on climate change. In 2011, the United States experienced a record twelve “billion-dollar” extreme weather events, including flooding from Hurricane Irene, unprecedented tornadoes in the Midwest, and crippling droughts and wildfires in the Southwest. Most scientists believe that climate change exacerbates extreme weather, a conclusion affirmed by the International Panel on Climate Change’s November 2011 report on the subject.

You must be logged in to post comments.

Password (case sensitive):
Remember Me:

Read Comments

Comments are posted from viewers like you and do not always reflect the views of this station.
  • by WILL on Feb 1, 2012 at 06:26 PM
    Be interesting to know who is funding this campaign.
  • by HL Location: Baltimore on Feb 1, 2012 at 05:17 PM
    This posting in reality is a press release from an activist organization. It is chock full of misinformation. A cursory review of the tornado literature will show that far more destructive tornadoes were documented in 1974 than in 2011. In one single outbreak during 1974 a total of 104 ground tracks were recorded across Illinois, Indiana and northeastern Ohio. More tornadoes and funnels clouds (many of lesser intensity) are now being detected with advanced Doppler radar than in previous decades. A close examination of other "extreme weather" events, including drought and floods, shows that past decades and previous centuries experienced equal or more severe events. It's time to put away the imagination caps and return to reality. Greater physical damage and casualty losses are attributable to greater exposure with growing populations, expanding developed areas and construction costs. HL Mencken
  • by Gerry Location: Tallahassee on Jan 31, 2012 at 06:13 AM
    If the idea of AGW is accepted by the general population, who would stand to lose?
  • by Anonymous on Jan 28, 2012 at 07:06 AM
    since the democratic party supports "gerry's" lifestyle he has to defend them on everything even when he is wrong
    • reply
      by Gerry on Jan 28, 2012 at 08:42 AM in reply to
      I bet that would be hard to prove.
  • by Anonymous on Jan 28, 2012 at 07:04 AM
    Bob Unruh of WorldNetDaily reported that 31,000 U.S. scientists - 9,000 with doctorate degrees in atmospheric science, climatology, Earth science, environment and other specialties - have signed a petition rejecting global warming. The list of scientists includes 9,021 Ph.D.s, 6,961 at the master’s level, 2,240 medical doctors and 12,850 carrying a bachelor of science or equivalent academic degree.
    • reply
      by Gerry on Jan 28, 2012 at 08:41 AM in reply to
      World Net Daily? That's funny. WND is the mouthpiece for the anti-science party. They're probably still telling people that WMDs were found in Iraq.
      • reply
        by Anonymous on Jan 28, 2012 at 09:52 AM in reply to Gerry
        Do your own homework genius.....the democratic party never taught you the other side of the hypothysis
  • by big T Location: pa on Jan 26, 2012 at 07:47 AM
    How about that. Almost 2/3 of a highly educated, well informed and in the business population think GW is not caused by humans. I will go with their expertise.
    • reply
      by Gerry on Jan 26, 2012 at 03:07 PM in reply to big T
      2/3 is a made-up number and there is no link to your source. Science is usually done by scientists. Scientists rarely submit their research to the business community for validation. They submit their research to other scientists for peer review. No credible scientist believes in 2012 that AGW doesn't exist. If I am wrong, name the most credible anti-AGW scientist.
      • reply
        by Anonymous on Jan 28, 2012 at 06:59 AM in reply to Gerry
        Dr. Ivar Giaever
      • reply
        by Anonymous on Jan 28, 2012 at 07:02 AM in reply to Gerry
        Dr. Gerhard Gerlich.... again doing "Gerry's" work for him as a "blogger"
    • reply
      by Anonymous on Jan 28, 2012 at 07:01 AM in reply to big T
      Freeman Dyson
      • reply
        by Gerry on Jan 29, 2012 at 05:02 AM in reply to
        Freeman Dyson is now 88 years old and retired. Are you saying Dyson says AGW doesn't exist?
        • reply
          by Anonymous on Jan 29, 2012 at 06:42 AM in reply to Gerry
          Stalin is dead but he is still a communist
        • reply
          by Gerry on Jan 29, 2012 at 07:39 AM in reply to Gerry
          @ Anonymous Dyson doesn't say AGW doesn't exist.
        • reply
          by Anonymous on Jan 29, 2012 at 04:13 PM in reply to Gerry
          So you have been researching what non politically motivated scientists are reporting about global warming and finally seeing the truth about it. Good. Keep up the good work and soon you will see the truth and turn from your partisan incorrect ways just as we planned.
        • reply
          by Gerry on Jan 29, 2012 at 09:22 PM in reply to Gerry
          @ Anonymous You are a cowardly gasbag, posting anonymously. Get a handle, use it consistently, and bring it on.
        • reply
          by Gerry on Jan 30, 2012 at 03:23 AM in reply to Gerry
          @Despicable Coward Anonymous That's squirrelly rightwing black helicopter conspiracy talk. 98% of scientists are politically motivated? Only the 1% or 2% who deny global warming are not?
        • reply
          by Anonymous on Jan 30, 2012 at 05:59 AM in reply to Gerry
          most scientists studying global warming get all their big money from government so they give the government what it wants and they get the media and the DNC platform. I gave you 30,000 SCIENTISTS who disagree but they are buried so your type never hears the other side of the hypothesis. GW is not fact, it is a theory.
  • by Gerry on Jan 26, 2012 at 06:20 AM
    I am now off to defend Obama again, catch my brilliance at his state of the union links
    • reply
      by Gerry on Jan 26, 2012 at 03:02 PM in reply to Gerry
      @Fake Gerry I wonder if this is a no credibility conservative spreading disinformation, misinformation, and confusion. Why would somebody who could make a case for conservatism duplicate somebody else's handle?
      • reply
        by Anonymous on Jan 28, 2012 at 07:16 AM in reply to Gerry
        His name is Gerry also...... why don't you use your last name?
  • by Gerry Location: Tallahassee on Jan 25, 2012 at 12:37 AM
    So we're all in agreement then that weather isn't climate and that one day's weather essentially tells you nothing about climate. We're also in agreement that there is basically no scientific basis for denying anthropocentric global warming is occurring and that denial of AGW is entirely political. No credible, reputable scientist denies in 2012 that AGW is occurring.
  • by Gerry Location: Tallahassee on Jan 24, 2012 at 05:44 AM
    It's those danged librul scientists. 98% of all scientists are libruls. The Tea Party is anti-science and so is the Republican Party. There's a bright future in anti-science. Anti-science will lead us into the future and make us more competitive globally.
    • reply
      by Anonymous on Jan 24, 2012 at 05:31 PM in reply to Gerry
      Economics is also science and the Democrats refuse again...... so sad
      • reply
        by Gerry on Jan 25, 2012 at 02:05 AM in reply to
        Economics is not a natural science the way chemistry, physics and biology are. Whether or not AGW is occurring is not an economics question. I should mention that your post makes no sense. It appears you wrote it while intoxicated.
        • reply
          by Anonymous on Jan 25, 2012 at 05:55 AM in reply to Gerry
          did not say natural science. quit changing topics to make yourself look smart
        • reply
          by Anonymous on Jan 25, 2012 at 12:24 PM in reply to Gerry
          "Yes, madam, I am drunk. But in the morning I will be sober and you will still be ugly." Winston Churchill
  • by LOL Location: tally on Jan 24, 2012 at 03:51 AM
    gerry has his panties in a wad....
    • reply
      by Anonymous on Jan 24, 2012 at 05:16 AM in reply to LOL
      yeah he posts bogus statements about climate not being weather and then he attacks the person who points out his error because they only posted as anonymous.... like gerry really tells us who he is without a last name or email address......but then he will say it is so he can reply to a particular poster but then he attacked the posters who use pseudonyms also so again he changed his liberal mind......yeah they are in a wad
      • reply
        by Gerry on Jan 24, 2012 at 05:39 AM in reply to
        You are too stupid to recognize irony. I thought everybody knew climate was not weather. My mistake. Librul? Gosh, you won another argument in the minds of Tea Party cretins, that is. Let me guess, are you a Tea party cretin?
        • reply
          by Tea bagger 1, Gerry 0 on Jan 24, 2012 at 06:10 AM in reply to Gerry
          Genius, admit your mistake and move on
        • reply
          by Gerry on Jan 24, 2012 at 10:39 AM in reply to Gerry
          @ Tea Bagger I didn't make a mistake, you did. Or, if I made a mistake, it was a mistake of punctuation or of overestimation. The climate in Tallahassee means the same as the weather in Tallahassee? I should have used a question mark so there would be little or no argument from the stupes, e.g., you. So do you have any argument against anthropocentric global warming except "librul"? In other words, do you have any scientific, as opposed to political, argument against AGW?
        • reply
          by Anonymous on Jan 24, 2012 at 05:27 PM in reply to Gerry
          If you forgot question mark, you made a mistake. Glad I made you go back and learn definitions so you could try to type your way out of the tangle you typed yourself into. You have been schooled by a tea bagger about the differences/similarities of weather/climate.
      • reply
        by Gerry on Jan 24, 2012 at 06:41 AM in reply to
        Can I presume from your post that even Tea Party cretins acknowledge that weather and climate are not the same?
        • reply
          by Anonymous on Jan 24, 2012 at 08:20 AM in reply to Gerry
          We assume you mean climate (long term) is derived from weather, but even a fair climate can have inclimate weather (short term).
        • reply
          by Gerry on Jan 24, 2012 at 11:00 AM in reply to Gerry
          @ Anonymous Weather is today, or 1 day, a sample of size 1. Climate is average weather. What is the average January 24 like over the last so many years? How many times did it rain on January 24? Snow? What's the average high on Jan 24? Low? Precipitation? Humidity? Rolling 2 dice once is like weather. I can get any number from 2 to 12, but they are not all equally likely. If I roll the 2 dice many times, the average value will be very nearly 7.
        • reply
          by Anonymous on Jan 24, 2012 at 05:28 PM in reply to Gerry
          statistics? sounds like climate to me
  • Page:
WCTV 1801 Halstead Blvd. Tallahassee, FL 32309
Copyright © 2002-2016 - Designed by Gray Digital Media - Powered by Clickability 137757548 - wctv.tv/a?a=137757548
Gray Television, Inc.