This story, which recently won a Science in Society award from the National Association of Science Writers, originally ran in CJR’s January/February 2010 issue.
The small makeup room off the main floor of KUSI’s studios, in a suburban canyon on the north end of San Diego, has seen better days. The carpet is stained; the couch sags. John Coleman, KUSI’s weatherman, pulls off the brown sweatshirt he has been wearing over his shirt and tie all day and appraises himself in the mirror, smoothing back his white hair and opening a makeup kit. “I kid that I have to use a trowel, to fill the crevasses of age,” he says, swiping powder under one eye and then the other. “People have tried to convince me to use more advanced makeup, but I don’t. I don’t try to fool anyone.”
Coleman is seventy-five years old, and looks it, which is refreshing in the Dorian Gray-like environs of television news. He refers to his position at KUSI, a modestly eccentric independent station in San Diego whose evening newscast usually runs fifth out of five in the local market, as his retirement job. When he steps in front of the green screen, it’s clear why he has chosen it over actual retirement; in front of the camera he moves, if not quite like a man half his age, then at least like a man three quarters of it. His eyes light up, and the slight stoop with which he otherwise carries himself disappears. His rumble of a voice evens out into a theatrical baritone, full of the practiced jocularity of someone who has spent all but the first nineteen years of his life on TV.
By his own rough estimate, John Coleman has performed more than a quarter million weathercasts. It is not a stretch to say that he is largely responsible for the shape of the modern weather report. As the first weatherman on ABC’s Good Morning America in the late 1970s and early ’80s, Coleman pioneered the use of the onscreen satellite technology and computer graphics that are now standard nearly everywhere. In 1982, chafing at the limitations of his daily slot on GMA, Coleman used his spare time—and media mogul Frank Batten’s money—to launch The Weather Channel. The idea seemed quixotic then, and his tenure as president ended a year later after an acrimonious split with Batten. But time proved Coleman to be something of a genius—the channel was turning a profit within four years, and by the time NBC-Universal bought it in 2008 it had 85 million viewers and a $3.5 billion price tag.
Those were the first two acts of Coleman’s career. On a Sunday night in early November 2007, Coleman sat down at his home computer and started to write the 967 words that would launch the third. “It is the greatest scam in history,” he began. “I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming: It is a SCAM.”
What had set him off was a football game. The Eagles were playing the Cowboys in Philadelphia on Sunday Night Football, and as a gesture of environmental awareness—it was “Green is Universal” week at NBC-Universal—the studio lights were cut for portions of the pre-game and half-time shows. Coleman, who had been growing increasingly skeptical about global warming for more than a decade, finally snapped. “I couldn’t take it anymore,” he told me. “I did a Howard Beale.”
Skepticism is, of course, the core value of scientific inquiry. But the essay that Coleman published that week, on the Web site ICECAP, would have more properly been termed rejectionism. Coleman wasn’t arguing against the integrity of a particular conclusion based on careful original research—something that would have constituted useful scientific skepticism. Instead, he went after the motives of the scientists themselves. Climate researchers, he wrote, “look askance at the rest of us, certain of their superiority. They respect government and disrespect business, particularly big business. They are environmentalists above all else.”

... except that the reason most meteorologists are skeptical of "climate science" is that they do understand meteorology and basic physics, and the overwhelming body of evidence at this time is that the fundamental drivers of weather -- solar variation and the hydrological cycle -- are in fact the fundamental drivers of climate change. While at the same time, the actual evidence for CO2 having even a minor role in the 1980-2000 warming spell remains, after two decades and $100 billion, zero.
Obviously Mr. Homans just doesn't understand the science.
#1 Posted by Craig Goodrich, CJR on Thu 15 Sep 2011 at 02:09 PM
I’ll paraphrase some of my original comments from the January 2010 article.
Most meteorologist are skeptical of “climate change” because while they may not have as detailed a grasp of the work of climate modeling specifically they understand the limitations of computer modeling in general as it relates to forecasting and have daily interaction with its usefulness and limitations. As they have firsthand knowledge of the limitations of computer modeling in weather forecasting its not a stretch to apply that same experience to climate modeling.
An aspect of the story that I didn’t really notice originally was Homans’ rather backhanded dismissal of meteorologist or TV weathermen as unqualified to comment on the subject because they weren’t researchers and lacked graduate degrees. I’ll remember that the next time I read an article quoting Bill McKibben on climate change or Michael Pollen on agriculture.
#2 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Thu 15 Sep 2011 at 02:52 PM
Anyone ever hear of 'The Butterfly Effect" before? Guess what - it is based on the work of one Professor Lorenz, a meteorologist.
So "warming trends were far more dependent on the water vapor in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide" has been "debunked?" Uh, the claims about CO2 is that an increase may cause an increase of water vapor and thus the Greenhouse Effect.
Now, I agree that CO2 has an effect and that we humans are adding more of it. How much more and just how big an effect, and even whether a global increase of up to four degrees Centigrade is good or bad, lots of discussion - and generally I'd trust a meteorologist over a civil (railroad) engineer, and the historical record[s] over either.
#3 Posted by John A, CJR on Thu 15 Sep 2011 at 04:27 PM
Weathermen, TV personalities--Americans generally--are optimists. We tend to believe that, even if we can't know for sure there won't be a thunderstorm tomorrow afternoon, in general things are getting better.
I think that's why so many reject environmentalism generally, and climate change specifically. The message of both is that things are, in fact, not getting better. Some people just refuse to believe it. It's kind of unAmerican.
#4 Posted by Edward Ericson Jr., CJR on Thu 15 Sep 2011 at 05:40 PM
Meteorology = Climatology
Accounting = Economics
Mom's chicken soup = Pharmaceutical Industry
#5 Posted by David Zimmerman, CJR on Wed 21 Sep 2011 at 04:29 PM
This is an oddly positioned article, written with such an obvious prejudice that it is almost laughable. Attempting to make such a distinction between meteorologists and 'climatologists' ignores that fact that it is only in the last 10 or 20 years that there has even been such a specialty offered by universities. Prior to that, those studying climate issues studied in the geography department! It like telling a GP that his general medical opinion doesn't count because he isn't a oncologist. Shessh! Any meteorologist certainly has a better handle on the science involved in climate issues than Al Gore. Since climatology depends more on physics than meteorology, then we should expect climatologists to listen to those physicists. Many of the leading skeptics are just that, PhD holding physics professors of our major universities. Odd, isn't it.
#6 Posted by Kip Hansen, CJR on Thu 22 Sep 2011 at 04:03 PM
The comments shown here are frightening, but they do show how anti-intellectualism is running rampant. Meteorology was not very distinct from Climatology until climate science began to be really physics-based, requiring more than describing and reporting (just as Astrophysics arose from Astronomy -- a really different mind-set). If most TV meteorologists aren't science-trained, it stands to reason they probably DO NOT have a basic idea of physics (neither do most liberal arts college professors). What meteorologists have to offer is important, but I know enough to realize some offer more than their expertise justifies. That's not "dismissing" them, it's using my discretion, based on my own knowledge and experience, to weigh what I'm told. For example, the statistics related to meteorological forecasting do not carry over simplistically into climatological models, so conclusions don't, either. It is not evil per se to have prejudice; it is impossible for me to judge science-based writing while forgetting that I have spent 30+ years as a Ph.D. scientist. Should I ignore that experience? Should I ignore the experience and record of the writer? Call that "prejudice" if you want, to slander facts and people you find inconvenient. Those facts are still facts.
Lorenz? Please don't mischaracterize his work. The major point is that Chaotic processes are deterministic (they have causes, even if we don't have a handle on all of them) but unpredictable (well, we don't -- can't -- know everything). As Climatology uncovers and understands more factors that influence climate, integrated models become more predictive, and the uncertainties smaller -- but they'll never be zero, just as meteorological models can't forecast the exact temperature on my deck at two AM.
And the world is in the hands of people like these, and like Inhofe. Sigh.
Thanks to Mr. Homans.
#7 Posted by Bel Campbell, CJR on Wed 5 Oct 2011 at 01:24 PM