Australian Scientist Turns Climate Models Upside Down: Forests Drive Climate, Not the Reverse!

Originally posted by Ghost375
reply to post by jdub297

 

Wow, telling me I need to do research?

The square footage of forests has be reduced drastically over the past 150 years by human. That's a fact! The things you link don't negate this FACT. Ever heard of the forests of Lebanon? Beautiful trees talked about in the bible destroyed in a brief span of time.

So you completely ignore my facts and instead resort to insulting me and propagating things that don't actually negate my facts.

I will not resort to your name-calling. But you've cited no facts, only your unfounded opinions.

Why don't we look, first at what the "environmentalists of the world think of reforestation programs set up to fight "global warming."

arbon market prices could tumble 75 percent if credits for re-growing forests are added to markets for industrial emissions, Greenpeace claims.

A report issued during U.N. talks on a climate treaty said that forest carbon credits could also slow the fight against global warming and divert billions of dollars from investments in clean technology. "Forest credits sound attractive but they are a dangerous option," Greenpeace International's political adviser on forests said.

Forests Could Undermine Carbon Market: Greenpeace

Moreover, the facts are that forestation has stabilized and increased along with economic development in the US and around the world.

The good news is that deforestation ceases to be a serious problem in most of the countries where economic development has progressed and sound forest practices, backed by political commitment, have been implemented. However, it must be clear that including forests at the core of a strategy for a sustainable future is not an option – it is mandatory.

www.fao.org...

It is estimated that—at the beginning of European settlement—in 1630 the area of forest land that would become the United States was 423 million hectares or about 46 percent of the total land area. By 1907, the area of forest land had declined to an estimated 307 million hectares or 34 percent of the total land area. Forest area has been relatively stable since 1907. In 1997, 302 million hectares—or 33 percent of the total land area of the United States—was in forest land. Today’s forest land area amounts to about 70 percent of the area that was forested in 1630.

fia.fs.fed.us...

Obviously, you have chosen to ignore the largest forest preservation, plantation and reforestation program
ever effected in human history -- REDD!

REDD

Try harder, or get your mom to explain this to you.

jw

reply to post by 1nquisitive

I think the overarching implication by the OP is that *if* the data is true, and forests contribute more to climatic change than humans, then in fact less forests will cause result in less climatic change, ie. human activity (eg. deforestation) will result in less climatic change.

NO.

The 'overarching implication" is precisely what the Article says: AGW models that do not account for water vapor and condensation are inherently inaccurate.
In case you missed the QUOTES, here they are again:

If the theory proves correct, the peer-reviewed international paper ...will overturn two centuries of conventional wisdom ... and will undermine key principles of every model on which climate predictions are based.
...
“Accepting our theory would basically mean the climate models are wrong. It wouldn’t mean that theories about carbon dioxide and greenhouse gasses are wrong. "

www.theaustralian.com.au...
www.thegwpf.org...
Where do winds come from? A new theory on how water vapor condensation influences atmospheric pressure and dynamics

Isn't that clear?

The AGW-supporting models are wrong.
The models (and the IPCC FAR) virtually ignore the role of water vapor (the most abundant GHG), and focus on CO2 instead.
Others "climate scientists" agree with these findings, and earlier studies have shown similar results.
AGW-advocating, dependent "scientists" are attacking this study as an assault on their livelihood, faith and chosen policy.
The peer-reviewed Journal, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics publishe it over the objections of AGW advocates.

Man's influence is no more than one of many factors affecting climate. Man does not drive the climate.
Other major influences are being ignored to increase the focus on CO2.

jw

Anyway IF forests have more importance than anything else regarding climate change, and humans have been embarked on a poilicy of massive deforestation in the past century, isn't that just more proof that humans are responsible for climate change?

Originally posted by AndyMayhew
Anyway IF forests have more importance than anything else regarding climate change, and humans have been embarked on a poilicy of massive deforestation in the past century, isn't that just more proof that humans are responsible for climate change?

I guess it would be too much to ask that members actiually read links and quotes before they spout rhetoric or unsupported opinions.

"More proof?"
In addition to what? The "consensus?" The "settled science?"

By this time, even the staunchest AGW advocates acknowledge that the "science" is far from "settled." (The subject article ( and dozens of others) makes this clear if you would read it.) The "consensus" is an illusion. Read any of the analyses of this over-wrought claim, and illogical support, for the facts.
(Do you really believe that, "everybody says it's true," is valid support for any proposition?)

If your "hypothesis" were proven, and correlated with observations, this would be an argument.
As it stands, it is naked opinion

Sadly, for the AGW religion, total forest cover is stable and has been so for more than 100 years.
I've cited and linked specific, recent studies.

Others rely upon their fears, false beliefs and propaganda.

jw

Originally posted by StrangeOldBrew

Good god did you even read a word I wrote? I neither said that AGW is true, nor did I say it was false. I said its a meaningless topic to debate and that I really don't give a crap about it.

Can you provide a coherent argument, with sources, that refutes the fact that humans are having a negative impact on BIODIVERSITY and ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS by way of resource exploitation, environment encroachment, and industrial pollution? Can anyone quote any study by any scientist that would refute this claim?

Hahaha I love arguing for arguments' sake too. However I couldn't be arsed providing academic sources to support my arguments. Ain't no-one got time fo' dat. It's a frickin' internet forum, not a learned dissertation.

Global warming is a scam - it's thrown around today purely to support the forthcoming carbon markets - i.e. a global casino making massive income streams out of nothing so that the heavy hitters in the financial world may continue to gather and hoard their wealth at an even greater rate.

Doesn't take a lot of deep thinking to come to the conclusion that human occupation of our little corner of the galaxy is having a negative effect. Check out this famous NASA photo composite showing the nighttime lights of Earth for instance -

apod.nasa.gov...

It's like a Borg planet down there.

"We are the Borg. Lower your shields and surrender your natural resources. Existence as you know it is over. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own and then sell it to ourselves for a stupid profit. Resistance is futile - but fear not, because at current rates of exploitation our time on this planet is limited."

Is it even possible to develop a technological civilisation without eventually making the planet uninhabitable?

What's to blame? Human nature? The Almighty Dollar/Pound/Euro/Yuan?

What's the root cause which is driving us to destroy our home?

reply to post by nottelling


Just because some assholes have planned to take advantage of a silly 'solution' doesn't mean the subject is false. AGW is not a hoax, it is the consensus of 99% of scientists... anyone telling you there is no consensus is probably also looking to sell you some snake oil.

reply to post by Kali74

AGW is not a hoax, it is the consensus of 99% of scientists... anyone telling you there is no consensus is probably also looking to sell you some snake oil.

You've GOT to be kidding!
The "97%" myth was dispelled long ago, largely by the "climatologists" who responded to the "survey."
You cite as "fact" an urban legend driving the uneducated or credulous to accept, unthinking, the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis.

Are you even aware of the 2 "studies" used to support the "97%/consensus" argument:
The Anderegg, et al 2010 PNAS paper; and the 2008 poll by a U Chi. graduate student (Margaret R. K. Zimmerman), and summarized in a January 2009 in EOS?

The Anderegg paper has been roundly condemned as worse than useless by several actual scientists.

Aside from the pitiful and subjective wording of Zimmerman's primary questions, their selection of only 77 "climatologists" was woefully flawed and inconsistent.
Out of the 77 respondents, 34 couldn't even understand the author's terminology and criteria:
Q1. “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”
Q2. “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” The possible answers were, “Yes”, “No”, and “I’m not sure.”

Their answers reveal the idiocy of the "Poll" upon which so many place such great faith:

•“I do not know what you mean by significant. I believe humans are affecting the climate, I am not sure how and to what level.”
•“I don’ know how to distinguish the effect of human activity from other controls, and I don’t know how you define ‘significant’.”
•“I think human activity is a significant component, but I do not know if it is 10%, 25%, 50% or more.“
•“I have no doubt that it is a factor, and part of my answer relates to the vagueness of the word ‘significantly’. Certainly natural variability is significant. I don’t think we are yet able to ease out the fraction of warming that is anthropogenic from the fraction that is natural…”
•“It depends on your definition of ‘significant. Is human activity a factor? Yes.”
•“Personally I have no doubt that human activity is a contributing factor to increased average MGT, but I cannot evaluate unquantified, qualitative statements like ‘major,’ ‘important,’ or ‘significant’ and disapprove of their use in scientific discussions/conclusions.”
•“Significant is a loaded term. Human activity has contributed to the increase in temperature, but how much has this activity impacted the global mean temperature?”
•“Significant’ is a relative term. To me, significant means that most of the changing temperature would be attributable to human activity. I’m not sure that can be demonstrated.”
•“‘Significant’ is a word that is open to multiple interpretations. Significant is the key word. it has made a difference, but I am not sure if it is a significant difference or just adding to a natural change in temperatures.”
•“That the humans are a contributing factor is clear, as to ‘significant’ is debatable.”
•“I believe human activity is likely doing something, but I hesitate to say it is ‘significant’.”
•“The key word is significant. There have been cyclic warm and cold periods since man has been on earth. The last 10 years the mean temperature has been rather flat, and we have a downward spike this winter. I’m not sure of all the factors going on…”
•“The term significant is somewhat ambiguous particularly in comparison to climate changes throughout geologic history.“
•“The use of the word significant makes me unsure. I know that climate fluctuations are normal, and I’m not convinced that humans are making current temperature changes significantly different.”
•“The way that you phrased the question implies that human activity has to be a significant contributor. I think that the data indicates we are contributors but I’m not sure that we understand the background cycles/changes well enough to know how small or how huge our impacts are.“
•“what do you mean by significant? Statistically? A player in the total rise? sure we are! How much? I am not sure.“
•“What is meant by significant? A major contribution, yes, but what is human activity compared with increased solar activity. So far, it is lost in the statistical models.

WHAT DID POLL RESPONDANTS ACTUALLY TELL SURVEY COORDINATORS?
www.climatechangedispatch.com...

If you still cling to this myth after reading the actual responses and objective criticisms, then you are bought-in to AGW beyond logic and reason.

deny ignorance

jw

I live in Illinois right in the middl of corn an soybean country, and I can certainly believe plants, not just trees affect the weather.

For instance, during the summer when the corn is high it is literally suffocating in a corn field. When you drive down a county road surrounded by corn fields the humidity is different enough to feel. You can literally feel the humidity radiating from the corn fields. In areas of bean fields it is less humid, and when you get into a town the heat index is much lower. It can be like the difference of being in the sun and the shade.

This is more noticable in the last decade, when the fields around here started to look more and more like 'roided out corn and bean fields.

reply to post by SouthernForkway26

Great observation!
I lived for a while in the upper midwest in a moderate-sized city surrounded by cornfields; it was almost suffocating, and I'm from South Texas, where humid is a way of life.

Funny how things we all know, intuitively, become the basis for arguments and ridicule as soon as a legitimate scientist uses them to challenge the conventional wisdom! It's as if the faithful have no choice but to reject anything that questions their dogma. Preserving the faith becomes more important than rational examination of simple observations.

jw

Originally posted by SouthernForkway26

For instance, during the summer when the corn is high it is literally suffocating in a corn field. When you drive down a county road surrounded by corn fields the humidity is different enough to feel. You can literally feel the humidity radiating from the corn fields. In areas of bean fields it is less humid, and when you get into a town the heat index is much lower. It can be like the difference of being in the sun and the shade.

I'm sorry but the historical Chicago weather data for the summer months doesn't support your statement. www.chicagoweathercenter.com...

Your assertions are little more than urban myth unless they can be backed up by solid, academic research.

What? There IS no academic research on that particular subtopic of the greater issue of climate change? That's too bad. You don't deserve to be listened to until some egghead gets paid to do some biased thinkin' about it.

Anecdotal evidence which doesn't support the well-funded agenda is to be ignored.

Bummer - very sad.

reply to post by nottelling

I don't know; from what I've seen of the AGW advocates here and elsewhere, the plural of anecdote IS data.
Further, I'm not sure that the Chicago area is an accurate comparison to "the middle or corn and soybean fields."
More cherry-picking, it seems.

Sadly, ridiculing an observation seems to be the best "weapon" the faithful have left.
How pathetic.

jw

reply to post by jdub297

The "97%" myth was dispelled long ago, largely by the "climatologists" who responded to the "survey."

No it wasn't debunked, you've chosen to believe lies over fact, which seems to be quite a pattern among your peers.

As Frontline correspondent John Hockenberry noted, there is a consensus amongst 97% of climate scientists that humans are driving global warming. In several of their many post-Frontline damage control efforts (more on these below), climate denialists invoked the most common response to the debunking of the 'no consensus' myth - that the 97% consensus figure comes from a small sample size of only 79 climate science experts in Doran and Zimmerman (2009). However, this is just one among many examples of the scientific consensus.

For example, in the same study, Doran and Zimmerman received responses from 3,146 Earth Scientists; 82% agreed that human activity is a significant contributing factor to global warming. Note that the Earth Scientists contacted in their survey include petroleum geologists, who have a higher rate of consensus rejection due to the conflict of interest associated with their fossil fuel-dependent profession.

Additionally, Oreskes (2004) surveyed 928 peer-reviewed climate science abstracts, finding that 75% either explicitly or implicitly endorsed the consensus view, while finding zero papers rejecting it in her sample. Benny Peiser set out to disprove Oreskes' result and instead ended up confirming it.

Using a dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data, Anderegg et al. (2010) found a similar result to Doran and Zimmerman, that between 97% to 98% of climate experts support the consensus, and that the average number of publications by the 'skeptics' is around half the number by scientists convinced by the evidence of human-caused global warming.

The Vision Prize also conducted an online survey of scientists in 2012, finding in a sample of 171 participants that approximately 90% believe human activity has had a primary influence on global warming over the past 250 years, with the other 10% describing the human influence as a secondary influence. The consensus was also significantly stronger than the participants expected.

There is also a very long list of scientific organizations endorsing the consensus position, with none opposing it. The Academies of Science from 19 different countries all endorse the consensus. 13 countries have signed a joint statement endorsing the consensus position. A letter from 18 scientific organizations to US Congress endorses the consensus. And the consensus is also endorsed by a Joint statement by the Network of African Science Academies (NASAC).

In short, the scientific consensus on human-caused global warming is an indisputable reality, supported by many different lines of evidence, despite the strategic efforts to deny it.

skeptical science

reply to post by Kali74

Citing more advocates who buy into the myth doesn't change the fact that your "consensus" is built upon self-selected and self-evaluated analysis of various articles. Really objective and reproducible, that "science."
That crap is by definition incapable or testing and replication!

The other "source" remains unchallenged: a poorly worded, vague "poll" to which the respondents offered more criticism than acquiescence. You cannot change that hog with liberal lipstick.

So where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.

Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”.

That Scientific Global Warming Consensus...Not!

Get a grip.

No matter how many faithful agree to accept crap for "proof," it doesn't change a flawed poll or survey into objective science.

Your "consensus" is a myth.
If you can't see it, you're not trying.

jw

reply to post by jdub297


You know what's funny? No one you ever scream at in these threads of yours ever really makes threads about AGW, yet you call us religious fanatics, faithful and all manner of other things to imply we're zombies or propagandists. You're the fanatic.

You constantly cite debunks that anyone with a minimal ability to comprehend what they read can see are cherry picked and largely just simply false. Yet, when provided with actual science from the actual scientists you launch into your religious fanatics tirade and claim it is what you're guilty of posting.

Your debate is the equivalent of I know you are but what am I...

Science is clear, there is consensus on AGW. Human activities, mainly through carbon emissions are warming the planet faster than nature can keep up with resulting in drastic climate change. You can scream and cry and buy the propaganda of polluters, all you want. It doesn't change scientific fact.

Originally posted by Kali74

 

No it wasn't debunked, you've chosen to believe lies over fact,

climate denialists

"climate denialists", another label to denounce and demonize people for their opinion.

9-11 Truther, Birther, Conspiracy Theorist, Holocaust denyer, Anti-Semite. Words for people who are guilty of asking questions.

Scientists know where the funding is coming from, mainly the government, so you better say what it wants. And scientists want to get their articles published they better conform to the mainstream and pass the litmus test.

Science should be the field where asking querstions is not only permitted but mandatory. But then, neither is journalism and politics any longer.

reply to post by ThinkingHuman

9-11 Truther, Birther, Conspiracy Theorist, Holocaust denyer, Anti-Semite. Words for people who are guilty of asking questions.

None of whom really ask any questions, denialists fit nicely in your grouping. People that ask questions are called skeptics. Generally skeptics don't ask questions in light of overwhelming evidence, they tend to rely on science and facts. But let's pretend for one minute that AGW skeptics actually exist, it would be nice if these skeptics weren't paid by the likes of Koch, Exxon et all.

Originally posted by Kali74

 

9-11 Truther, Birther, Conspiracy Theorist, Holocaust denyer, Anti-Semite. Words for people who are guilty of asking questions.

None of whom really ask any questions, denialists fit nicely in your grouping. People that ask questions are called skeptics. Generally skeptics don't ask questions in light of overwhelming evidence, they tend to rely on science and facts. But let's pretend for one minute that AGW skeptics actually exist, it would be nice if these skeptics weren't paid by the likes of Koch, Exxon et all.

Sorry to hear that you are "overwhelmed" by what you refer to as evidence. If you want to call me "skeptic" that's fine, but what "Conspiracy theorists" do is ask questions about the validity of the government sponsored "theory" (not fact), often by proposing alternate possible explanations for the observed phenomena. Again, sorry you haven't noticed.

Have you been to Boston lately, or Europe? Selecting the data that suits you? Ignoring the data that proves you wrong?

What is your proof that changes in climate cannot be explained by other causes? Can you not even think of other causes - or do you simply WANT this to be something to fit your agenda?

Notice, everybody, the topic of "climate science" does not even get addressed - it is stopped dead in its track by calling people by labels because they disagree, "denialists" (if that word even exists?), and then the discussion shifts to label calling. So what do you call yourself, "undenialist"?

JDub297:

Funny thing, the IPCC and their FARs, upon which ALL of the AGW religion depends, find that solar radiative forcing is negligible in assessing warming trends and causation.

Once again, counterintuity. Nothing on our planet with regard to it's climate dynamics arises without the radiative energy from our sun, which fluctuates over the decades and is where climate research and debate starts. Next, one needs to look at our planet's orbital mechanics, axial tilt, and spin, which again varies slightly each year, but should make little (but some) impact upon its climate. Once the celestial relationship, its mechanical dynamics has been assessed, then we can look at atmospheric dynamics, wind, rain, naturally-occurring cloud creation, oceanic evaporation, etc.

Large swathes of forested land become self-propagating micro-climate systems. Trees act convectively, because they catch lots of moisture upon their surfaces, especially their leaves, but it is moisture created locally, and it is the sun's heat that drives the convective dynamics, making the large forested areas act like greenhouses, so underneath the canopy is cooler and more moisture-laden than at the top of the trees where the sunlight is.

Most moisture in the atmosphere arises from oceanic evaporation which is caused by heat from the sun, and it is this moisture that moves freely around the planet when caught up by the circulating winds and jet streams...there is nothing to trap the moisture in one place like trees and other foilage. Gases do not drive the climate, they are simply ingredients that are moved around.

Our planet's climate is a complex many variable dynamic, and out of all the variables that make it up, the one over-riding variable that drives it all is the sun. Without it, there would be no evaporation, there would be no moisture in the atmosphere, there would be no forests, no light, no life, and a world encased in permanent ice.

Apart from the variable of the sun's heat, it is not possible to isolate any other climatic variable and suggest that that is the cause of climate, but you can suggest it as partly causal (in correspondence with other variables) of 'type' of climate...tropical or not, etc. This is the debate...not what 'drives' the climate, but what 'type' of climate....that I can happily go along with.

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by jdub297

 

Science is clear, there is consensus on AGW. Human activities, mainly through carbon emissions are warming the planet faster than nature can keep up with resulting in drastic climate change. You can scream and cry and buy the propaganda of polluters, all you want. It doesn't change scientific fact.

You have missed the point, entirely.

Even if we were to presume that there is a 100% consensus that man's use of fossil fuels is the dominant force driving climate, such a consensus does not make it true.

Smarter people than me agree that: "Consensus does not necessarily guarantee sound science."

You choose to believe that polls and surveys are reliable indicators of "science."
Not everyone agrees with you, and they are not the idiots, shills and "denialists" you abjure and denigrate.

A 2010 survey of meteorologists conducted by George Mason University found that 63% believe global warming is mostly caused by natural, not human, causes.
A National Survey Of Television Meteorologists About Climate Change

A 2008 poll of the Canadian Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysics of Alberta (APEGGA) found that 26% of them attributed global warming to “human activity like burning fossil fuels.

Virtually 100% of the respondents agree that the climate is changing. However, there is disagreement as to the causes – human, natural, or a combination - and few believe that the debate of the scientific causes is settled.

www.apega.ca..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow"> Member Consultation on Climate Change
APEGGA’s executive director, Neil Windsor, said, “We’re not surprised at all. There is no clear consensus of scientists that we know of.”

Physicist Freeman Dyson is more blunt about the hysteria:

Climate models, he says, take into account atmospheric motion and water levels but have no feeling for the chemistry and biology of sky, soil and trees. “The biologists have essentially been pushed aside,” he continues. “Al Gore’s just an opportunist. The person who is really responsible for this overestimate of global warming is Jim Hansen. He consistently exaggerates all the dangers. … Hansen has turned his science into ideology”

www.nytimes.com...

And what does the “father of Anthropogenic Global Warming” see as the greatest obstacle to common acceptance of AGW?

The greatest barrier to public recognition of human-made climate change is the natural variability of climate.

www.columbia.edu...

No one is going to change your mind.

The sad thing is that millions, if not billions of people will suffer a worse life than they otherwise would, solely because of climate alarmism.
Ever since Hansen first predicted in 1988 that the seas would put New York City under 20 feet of water by 2000, government- and grant-funded opportunists have been wrong and wrong again in their fear-mongering. All at great cost to people and economies.

I've followed this debate for more than 20 years; and in all that time, I have yet to see one change that has positively affected global climate as a result of the AGW hysteria.
I have, however, seen businesses, industries and lifestyles injured and distorted in the name of the ideology.
Not even the IPCC can indentify any single climate event or change positively linked to the actions of man.

Believe in any "consensus" you want; you cannot change facts.

jw

reply to post by jdub297

You choose to believe that polls and surveys are reliable indicators of "science." Not everyone agrees with you, and they are not the idiots, shills and "denialists" you abjure and denigrate.

They are actually, considering they are polls and surveys of scientists actually conducting the science or peer reviewing the actual science.

A 2010 survey of meteorologists conducted by George Mason University found that 63% believe global warming is mostly caused by natural, not human, causes. A National Survey Of Television Meteorologists About Climate Change

You contradict yourself nearly every other word. You're calling me out on polls because according to this poll and survey 63% believe global warming is caused naturally.

But let's take a closer look at your surveys and polls.

Of the 1,408 names and email addresses provided by AMS and NWA, 35 people were ineligible
because we determined that they no longer worked as TV meteorologists, and 44 email addresses
proved to be incorrect (and despite an active search, correct email addresses could not be located).
Therefore, the valid initial denominator of our sample was 1,373. Fifty-nine of these people refused to participate, 743 did not respond, and 571 completed at least some portion of the survey,
yielding a minimum response rate of 41.6% (which assumes that all non-respondents were eligible
to participate).

So really what happened is this. 63% of 571 Meteorologists believe that Global Warming is natural not caused by humans. But there's a little more to it.

This study was the largest and most representative survey of television weathercasters
conducted to date. The on-line survey of broadcast television members of the American
Meteorological Society (AMS) and National Weather Association (NWA) was intended to be a
census of the nation’s TV weathercasters. A total of 571 respondents completed at least some portion of the survey, a minimum response rate of 42%, and an adjusted response rate of 52%.

It's important to understand why this survey was conducted, though I'd never heard of this survey or George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communications (4C) a quick search and reading the survey you linked tells me a lot. The survey was conducted by 4C:

Introduction

Climate change is the result of human actions and choices. Limiting climate change – and protecting people and ecosystems to the degree possible from unavoidable changes in the climate – will require significant public engagement in the issue so that difficult decisions can be made by members of the public and policy makers. Our center was created to conduct unbiased social science research that will facilitate such public engagement.

More About Us

We use social science research methods – experiments, surveys, in-depth interviews and other methods – to find ways of effectively engaging the public and policy makers in the problem, and in considering and enacting solutions. Social science research has played important roles in many social change campaigns over the past several decades, including reducing smoking and littering, and increasing seat belt use and recycling.

Our Mission

Our mission is to conduct unbiased public engagement research - and to help government agencies, non-profit organizations, and companies apply the results of this research - so that collectively, we can stabilize our planet's life sustaining climate.

Back to the survey..

Our findings confirm that TV weathercasters play – or can play – an important role as
informal science educators. Nearly all of our respondents (94%) said they work at stations that
do not have anyone else covering science or environmental issues full-time. This number verifies
other research showing that only about 10% of TV stations have a dedicated specialist to cover
these topics. By default, and in many cases by choice, science stories become the domain of the
only scientifically trained person in the newsroom—weathercasters. Two-thirds of our
respondents report on science issues once per month or more frequently and one-third would like
to report on science issues more frequently. Topics they cover range from astronomy to zoology,
and many weathercasters have become the point person for expertise on plate tectonics in local TV
newsrooms on the recent earthquakes in Haiti and Chile.

cont~