Regardless whether you agree with their research or not it is evident that climate scientists are now the most depressed academics in the world:
esquire.com/news-politics/a36228/ballad-of-the-sad-climatologists-0815/Here's an excerpt:
"Scientists are problem solvers by nature, trained to cherish detachment as a moral ideal. Jeffrey Kiehl was a senior scientist with the National Center for Atmospheric Research when he became so concerned about the way the brain resists climate science, he took a break and got a psychology degree. Ten years of research later, he's concluded that consumption and growth have become so central to our sense of personal identity and the fear of economic loss creates such numbing anxiety, we literally cannot imagine making the necessary changes. Worse, accepting the facts threatens us with a loss of faith in the fundamental order of the universe. Climate scientists are different only because they have a professional excuse for detachment, and usually it's not until they get older that they admit how much it's affecting them—which is also when they tend to get more outspoken, Kiehl says. "You reach a point where you feel—and that's the word, not think, feel—'I have to do something.' "
And Another one: "No one has experienced that hostility more vividly than Michael Mann, who was a young Ph.D. researcher when he helped come up with the historical data that came to be known as the hockey stick—the most incendiary display graph in human history, with its temperature and emissions lines going straight up at the end like the blade of a hockey stick. He was investigated, was denounced in Congress, got death threats, was accused of fraud, received white powder in the mail, and got thousands of e-mails with suggestions like, You should be "shot, quartered, and fed to the pigs along with your whole damn families." Conservative legal foundations pressured his university, a British journalist suggested the electric chair. In 2003, Senator James Inhofe's committee called him to testify, flanking him with two professional climate-change deniers, and in 2011 the committee threatened him with federal prosecution, along with sixteen other scientists."
Comments
It seems that we're talking about a broadcasting "Good Housekeeping Seal" for TV weather folk, not trained scientists.
"Most weathercasters are not really scientists. ... barely half of them had a college degree in meteorology or another atmospheric science. Only 17 percent had received a graduate degree, effectively a prerequisite for an academic researcher in any scientific field." Columbia Journalism Review, Jan/Feb 2010.
So much for legitimacy. The Seal of Approval was a performance stamp (did these weathercasters communicate well?), not a recognition of scientific competence. Unfortunately, many weathercasters present their own opinions as fact, which doesn't seem to merit commendation for good communication.
In any case, AMS discontinued awarding Seals of Approval in 2008.
Regarding the author of the article Anthony Watts attacking Cullen and climate change:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Watts_%28blogger%29
"Watts assisted with the setup of a radio program for his high school in Indiana,[11] and later attended electrical engineering and meteorology classes at Purdue University, but did not graduate or receive a degree.[2][12] In 1978, Watts began his broadcasting career as an on-air meteorologist for WLFI-TV in Lafayette, Indiana.[3]"
Regarding his attacks on climate science in general:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=dcxVwEfq4bM
The latter link is not only illuminating but good for chuckles.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/big-gap-between-what-scientists-say-and-americans-think-about-climate-change/?print=true
Here's Pew Research's own summary of the Pew Research/AAAS survey: 5 key findings on what Americans and scientists think about science
Pew's longer report on the survey: Public and Scientists’ Views on Science and Society
The latter contains links to the full report (111 page pdf), the questionnaire (Appendix C of the full report) - with responses and comparisons with earlier survey results, the Pew PR on the survey, and an interactive page, where you can look at results broken down by age, ideology, etc.
That last one looks like fun (or a way to get depressed, as Lewis and David noted), and I'm playing with it now.
Here's the latest (July 14, 2015) Pew survey across nations (Climate Change Seen as Top Global Threat), showing that climate change is the top concern for emerging nations (Latin America, China, India, South Africa and some other African countries), while US, Canada, Australia, Western Europe are most worried about ISIS, Russia is more concerned about economic instability, and Eastern Europe is most concerned about Russia.
topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/china/internet_censorship/index.html
It is well established that the government is willing to trade-off their environmental health for industrialization. Recent maternity tourists is an example of the richer class citizens who are willing to have their babies born in the States. Trouble is that these families need to return to their polluted cities when the visa expires.
bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-05-13/chinese-maternity-tourists-and-the-business-of-being-born-american
@MSF, Really thanks for your tireless efforts in getting all these references. Still reading while I am on my second cup of coffee.