Yes, but I can only speak from an Australian perspective and it is only my layman's understanding. The reason doctors were "muzzled" as someone puts it, is that there was nowhere giving out credible qualifications. As recognised courses were developed, the medical associations developed standards to confidently recommend the #1 variety. I'm not sure but I think new surgical procedures spread in a similar manner. I do agree there may have been some foot dragging in the case of chiropractors (my ex-wife swears by her's), but to this day my physio guy (who performs "magic" on my ocassional bouts of sciatica) doesn't like their methods at all.
You are missing the point, meterologists are not climatoligists yet they are presenting themselves as such. As another bad analogy, it is like a science teacher represents science and thus should not expound creationisim to their students. The weatherman controls the public pulpit and is preaching faith and hearsay as consensus opinion. And yes I think doctors who plug magnetic blankets on TV should also be kicked out of any scientific body they belong to even though they are only harming peoples wallet.
It's not just climate, climate is highly visable and misunderstood because it has the most political power behind it's propoganda, but go to any newsagent and you will find ufo's, phycics, creationists and all manner of superstisious nonesense in the "science" section.
Thank-you for your digging. Being an early fan of RealClimate I saw the name "James Inhofe" in your post and recognised him as the guy who introduced a science fiction writer as a climate expert to a senate enviromental commitee that for some inexplicable reason features him as it's chairman. Your links have confirmed a strong feeling I had but did not want to voice without evidence.
TFA is a politically inspired, anti-science character assasination dressed up as news. Josef Goebbels would have been proud to put his name to such an insidious propoganda stunt.
Yes, however I doubt mankind has ever seen a global famine, with regional famines there is always something left of the biosphere that is worth surviving for.
Good grief man, no wonder you have trouble understanding the science! The GP clarly stated: "Look, I'm going to make up some fake numbers here to produce an example to more clearly illustrate the point."
I agree, and "climate generalities" predict that the weather will become more difficult to predict as the climate starts shifting around. It also predicts an increase in extremes with an overall warming, in the last few months here in SE Australia we have had snow falling on bushfires, three times!
Tip for the farmer's almanac: Watch for El-Nino "breaking the drought" in SE Australia over the next few months as we are inundated with flash flooding in what will be the hottest year on record (yet again).
"I wouldn't leave a gun idly on a table any sooner than I would drive my family home drunk."
And I wouldn't try to imply you are irresponsible from anything you have said here The "mental picture" comment is very telling, we are both products of our societies "norms". The fact that those norms are a long way apart (when it comes to guns) explains why we freak out a bit when comparing notes.
Just as a side note. My ex-brother in law (Peter, who has also been a close friend for over 30yrs) had a collection of 25+ restricted handguns in the mid 90's. He complied with the most restrictive parts of the law, including a special armory concreted into his floor and random inspections from the local cops.
Peter rang the local desk sergeant and arranged to sell of all of them plus his rifles and antiques the day he found out his eldest son was a heroin addict. He found out about the addiction because his sons best mate who lived a few doors down had lay down on his parents bed and shot himself in the head with his dad's service revolver. His dad was the local desk sergeant who also stored his weapon according to the law. OTOH: I also knew a kid who hung himself but I wouldn't argue to restrict rope (except in prisons and assylums).
Peter now owns one target pistol that he stores at the gun club, I haven't shot a gun since he sold his collection.
Just a nitpick, it's still the US determing what laws will apply to it citizens. After seeing how David Hicks has been treated by my own government I am under no illusions that they may work against me when outside of Australia's borders. And if I decide to smuggle drugs the feds will ensure I'm arrested in a country that will execute me.
I agree that "the weatherman's harm comes when people actually believe him", however the weatherman should NOT be silenced, nowhere did I or TFA suggest that. In the same vein the AMC should not be seen to endorse said weatherman's personal opinion. I also agree none of this has impact on the weatherman's ability to display some charts and predict the next few days weather.
"I can prove that germs exist by pulling out a microscope, scraping my tongue and showing you. You cannot do the same thing with climate change"
You have just tripped over a logical fallacy commonly known as comparing apples to oranges. You can demonstrate germs exist in the same way I can demonstrate the climate exists. The hypothisis that germs cause observed disease is what is comprable to the hypothisis of humans cause (most of) the observed GW.
BTW: The "one realclimate link" defines the consensus arrived at by every national science body on the planet bar none. All "sides" have been represented in this 30yr debate just as they have been in any other body of commonly agreed scientific knowledge you care to name. Try reading and refuting it instead of attacking it's presummed singularity.
It's obvious from your post that you belive "the problem" is political, it's is not, the solution (or lack of) is political. Science advises policy it does not form it, the "one world" conspiracy theory you subscribe to is only ever seriously considered by a subset of US conservatives who are under the delusion that their wallet is the target and envy of the world.
Although you did point correctly out that El-Nino (or as you pefer to all it "El Mino") played a significant part in the lack of hurricanes in the N. Atalantic last year, you failed to mention anything about SE Asian season. Your sprinkling of facts concerning water vapour and hurricanes are complete nonsense to anyone who has read any of the science.
I won't bother with cause and effect evidence and the strength of the argument, I have posted elsewhere if you are interested, but doubt that you are. I suspect you are intellectually lazy and find some sort of emotional comfort parroting neo-con political conspiracy theories.
Paleoclimate reconstructions are not soley based on argon proxies, if they were I would agree with you. Since multiple studies using different proxies and methodologies all come up with basically the same answer, I don't agree with you and anyone who proffesses to be scientific would likewise disagree. Independent repeatability via diverse paths is the cornerstone of a strong scientific conclusion.
"This is the problem with the global warming crowd. They present their hypotheses, theories, and their models as FACT."
No, this is the problem with the anti global warming crowd. They present their hypotheses, theories, and their models as if nobody had ever thought about it before they came along, they dogmatically assume one study constitutes or refutes an entire scientific disipline.
"In other words, it's a guess, built off of a computer model."
Yes, all science is an eductaed guess, in the same way that the trajectory of a space probe is a guess built from an iterative computer model that calculates an inexact answer to the "three body problem". Computer models are not based on the data they are based on the laws of physics and chemistry, data (gleaned from direct observation, tree ring, ect) is parametized input to those models. Nobody tells the model to build a hurricane, they emerge from the maodel that is soley based on physical "laws" and observational data.
"The reality is a lot of them are social engineers and socialists, not environmental or climate scientists."
Yes, yes, we all know that every national science body on the planet is overflowing with communists who want to destroy the US economy.
"That scientists don't understand this variance when advocating policy is what scares the hell out of me."
Well if scientists don't understand statistics and a random slashdot poster can set them straight with a paragraph of assertions I don't know what to say, "Variance" and "trend" is what this is all about.
"Keep in mind these same people drew the conclusion that therefore this year would be a horrific one as well, and it was a dud."
Ask SE Asia if thier season was a dud, the trend is global, the increased variance is regional. If you consider the N. Atlantic to be the etire N. Hemisphere then you need to look at an atlas. Open your eyes and have a look at how many large scale "once in X hundred/thousand/million year" events are happening.
Perhaps not, but I'm positive the links I gave do not put Fred assertions in a very good light.
"distorting what is written there"
I paraphrased the information and gave a source, any percived distortion was entirely due to my loathing of the kind of bi-partisan for-profit subversion of the scientific method that people like Fred represent.
"If someones broken into my house and I have a knife and a gun, the last thing on my mind is going to be picking up the knife because I can inflict a more refined blow that will only wound him. I'm going to shoot him, plain and simple. If I can hit him in a leg, great, but i'm not going to spend too much time worrying about his injury, thats his consideration that needs to be dealt with before the intruder starts to commit a crime."
And when the "intruder" you just shot out of fear turns out to be your daughters boyfriend holding a mobile phone? Or a kid comming down early for breakfast, picks up the bowl of cereal and shoots himself in the head with it? Your worldview regarding firearms makes no sense to me and I sure the feeling is mutual.
My point is, was, and will continue to be that guns inherit the intent of the weilder.
Neglegting accidents at the breakfast table and elsewhere, I whole heartedly agree.
"But, climate change is still subject to legitimate scientific debate"
Agreed, and "higher resolution" observations and models are essential to that debate!
"we still don't really understand either the extent to which it's happening or its causes."
This is what is understood, it is 5-6yrs out of date and will be updated this year, anecdotely it appears that the 2001 IPCC underestimated the extent and rate of change in many areas but we will have to wait and see. The margin of error for cause and effect is "beyond doubt" in much the same way as germ theory is "beyond doubt".
"(1) the existence of germs is much better proven than humans causing significant climate change"
I call bullshit, re: link above.
"(2) the surgeon's error may cause somebody to die, but the weatherman's is harmless (except, perhaps, to somebody else's agenda)."
And raise you another bullshit, this year Australia's grain crop was down 62% (~17M tons), we are the world's 3rd largest producer. Frost and snow in the middle of a record heat wave killed of our fruit crops in much the same way as California's crops were recently damaged by frost after unseasonal warmth.
Yet it is still true nobody can prove any one of the myrid examples across the globe is caused by AGW anymore than a doctor can prove smoking caused a particular lung tumor. But if the recent back to back hurricane seasons in the US is not an example of extreme climate variability I don't know what is? To wait for unobtainable certainty is a dogmatic failure to adapt to our surroundings. A surefire path to extinction unless of course the basic premise of evolution is also "just a theory".
"I'm pre-med myself, but I have no illusions about the profession."
Someone else also pulled me up on this and as I stated I don't live in Australia and made some "bold" legal assumptions in my post. It does not invalidate my point about the meaning of censorship and the overuse of conclusion mats.
Your post also begs the question, what should be done to improve US standards?
BTW: Your link points to an article by the noteworthy Fred Singer who gained noteriety for his tabbaco industry bullshit before moving on to fossil fuel industry bullshit, I would be surprised if he was unknown to all your lecturers. He is the guy you call when you want to delay something for a few decades (such as officially aknowlaging a smoker has a 1/20 chance of dying from their drug addiction and it is almost a certainty it will damaging their health), yes I'm a smoker but I don't encourage others and don't deny it's illogical.
Fred's own "survival" is liked to his ability to draw grants from vested interests. Since he also lobbies space policy I would not be surprised if he hand in redirecting NASA's gaze away from our own biosphere.
If you want to practise skepticisim, you can talk directly to some of the world's top climate scientists here. Being "pre-med" and all that, you will easily recognise the analogy between "consensus" climate diagnosis and a "firm" medical diagonsis.
"how on earth does a view on climate change affect whether you can accurately predict tomorrow's weather?"
Excellent question since we all know by now that weather != climate. The point is that the AMC have a body of science that says XYZ about the climate, they do not want someone giving the impression that they endorse a diametrically opposed view that they have investigated ad-nauseam. A weather presenter has every right to an opposing view but whilst a member of that organisation s/he should be clear their view is personal and unpublished. Perhaps a surgeon who refuses to wash thier hands but is still allowed to practice is a better analogy.
"What is motivating her to suggest this? You kick doctors out of the AMA because you're concerned about patients."
Climate predictions are like a medical diagnosis for the progression of a "cancer" known as the population explosion. The "cancer" is literally eating and befouling the biosphere at (dare I say) an "alarming" rate. The main symptoms of this "cancer" are climate change, habitat destruction, peak oil and the sixth great extinction. Nobody can say if or when the biosphere will collapse around us, it's like a game of kerplunk, everyone knows we can't keep removing straws indefinitely.
I live in Australia where a doctor requires a license to practice, I just assumed the AMA served a similar function in the US. I stand corrected (again) but I don't think it makes much difference to the point I'm attempting to make.
When will people STFU about volcanoes, mars warming, water vapour, solar flux and all the other politically inspired red herrings that have well and trully been acounted for if you look beyond the WSJ. As for TFA they are not censoring anyone, they have a right (if not a duty) to shun psuedo-science in their own ranks.
"I'm saying that a religious belief in a single monolithic truth is extravagantly unlikely to deliver the best choices"
Show me one scientists who claims to know the "truth" about the future and I will show you a fraud. Religious belief is defined as faith without evidence, religious dogma is faith in the face of overwhelming contra evidence, some weathermen are indeed guilty of religious dogma and are a prime source of red-herrings as described above. If they're not guilty and it's all just "groupthink by the establishment", then why did we stop examining animal entrails to know when to plant crops? Why don't we have a weatherman slaughtering a live chicken to decide where the next hurricane will land? Or an astrologer to predict drought by the colour and position of mars? And why aren't they all certified by the AMS and taught in our schools via appropriate stickers in a narrow minded effort that would further cloud any critical thinking by the general public?
BTW: I don't want to discourage anyone from being a skeptic in the scientific sense of the word. Informed and introspective skepticisim is why science is so stunningly successfull (but far from perfect) at predicting future consequences. But be aware that skepticisim must first trample on one's own beliefs and dogma to become a usefull tool.
Slashdot Mirror
"Don't take this as an attack on yourself. It's a constructive critique."
Point taken without offence, I should let my sources speak for themselves. Please forgive my unintentional hyperbole.
Yes, but I can only speak from an Australian perspective and it is only my layman's understanding. The reason doctors were "muzzled" as someone puts it, is that there was nowhere giving out credible qualifications. As recognised courses were developed, the medical associations developed standards to confidently recommend the #1 variety. I'm not sure but I think new surgical procedures spread in a similar manner. I do agree there may have been some foot dragging in the case of chiropractors (my ex-wife swears by her's), but to this day my physio guy (who performs "magic" on my ocassional bouts of sciatica) doesn't like their methods at all.
Dogma: Faith despite overwhelming contra evidence.
An apt description for the views expressed in your post and the views of some weather presenters.
And here is where the "censorship" dogma is coming from with this particular story.
You are missing the point, meterologists are not climatoligists yet they are presenting themselves as such. As another bad analogy, it is like a science teacher represents science and thus should not expound creationisim to their students. The weatherman controls the public pulpit and is preaching faith and hearsay as consensus opinion. And yes I think doctors who plug magnetic blankets on TV should also be kicked out of any scientific body they belong to even though they are only harming peoples wallet.
It's not just climate, climate is highly visable and misunderstood because it has the most political power behind it's propoganda, but go to any newsagent and you will find ufo's, phycics, creationists and all manner of superstisious nonesense in the "science" section.
Thank-you for your digging. Being an early fan of RealClimate I saw the name "James Inhofe" in your post and recognised him as the guy who introduced a science fiction writer as a climate expert to a senate enviromental commitee that for some inexplicable reason features him as it's chairman. Your links have confirmed a strong feeling I had but did not want to voice without evidence.
TFA is a politically inspired, anti-science character assasination dressed up as news. Josef Goebbels would have been proud to put his name to such an insidious propoganda stunt.
Yes, however I doubt mankind has ever seen a global famine, with regional famines there is always something left of the biosphere that is worth surviving for.
Good grief man, no wonder you have trouble understanding the science! The GP clarly stated: "Look, I'm going to make up some fake numbers here to produce an example to more clearly illustrate the point."
I agree, and "climate generalities" predict that the weather will become more difficult to predict as the climate starts shifting around. It also predicts an increase in extremes with an overall warming, in the last few months here in SE Australia we have had snow falling on bushfires, three times!
Tip for the farmer's almanac: Watch for El-Nino "breaking the drought" in SE Australia over the next few months as we are inundated with flash flooding in what will be the hottest year on record (yet again).
"I wouldn't leave a gun idly on a table any sooner than I would drive my family home drunk."
And I wouldn't try to imply you are irresponsible from anything you have said here The "mental picture" comment is very telling, we are both products of our societies "norms". The fact that those norms are a long way apart (when it comes to guns) explains why we freak out a bit when comparing notes.
Just as a side note. My ex-brother in law (Peter, who has also been a close friend for over 30yrs) had a collection of 25+ restricted handguns in the mid 90's. He complied with the most restrictive parts of the law, including a special armory concreted into his floor and random inspections from the local cops.
Peter rang the local desk sergeant and arranged to sell of all of them plus his rifles and antiques the day he found out his eldest son was a heroin addict. He found out about the addiction because his sons best mate who lived a few doors down had lay down on his parents bed and shot himself in the head with his dad's service revolver. His dad was the local desk sergeant who also stored his weapon according to the law. OTOH: I also knew a kid who hung himself but I wouldn't argue to restrict rope (except in prisons and assylums).
Peter now owns one target pistol that he stores at the gun club, I haven't shot a gun since he sold his collection.
Just a nitpick, it's still the US determing what laws will apply to it citizens. After seeing how David Hicks has been treated by my own government I am under no illusions that they may work against me when outside of Australia's borders. And if I decide to smuggle drugs the feds will ensure I'm arrested in a country that will execute me.
I agree that "the weatherman's harm comes when people actually believe him", however the weatherman should NOT be silenced, nowhere did I or TFA suggest that. In the same vein the AMC should not be seen to endorse said weatherman's personal opinion. I also agree none of this has impact on the weatherman's ability to display some charts and predict the next few days weather.
"I can prove that germs exist by pulling out a microscope, scraping my tongue and showing you. You cannot do the same thing with climate change"
You have just tripped over a logical fallacy commonly known as comparing apples to oranges. You can demonstrate
germs exist in the same way I can demonstrate the climate exists. The hypothisis that germs cause observed disease is what is comprable to the hypothisis of humans cause (most of) the observed GW.
BTW: The "one realclimate link" defines the consensus arrived at by every national science body on the planet bar none. All "sides" have been represented in this 30yr debate just as they have been in any other body of commonly agreed scientific knowledge you care to name. Try reading and refuting it instead of attacking it's presummed singularity.
The cure for speech you don't like is more speech
Agreed. That's why I'm still talking to you.
It's obvious from your post that you belive "the problem" is political, it's is not, the solution (or lack of) is political. Science advises policy it does not form it, the "one world" conspiracy theory you subscribe to is only ever seriously considered by a subset of US conservatives who are under the delusion that their wallet is the target and envy of the world.
Although you did point correctly out that El-Nino (or as you pefer to all it "El Mino") played a significant part in the lack of hurricanes in the N. Atalantic last year, you failed to mention anything about SE Asian season. Your sprinkling of facts concerning water vapour and hurricanes are complete nonsense to anyone who has read any of the science.
I won't bother with cause and effect evidence and the strength of the argument, I have posted elsewhere if you are interested, but doubt that you are. I suspect you are intellectually lazy and find some sort of emotional comfort parroting neo-con political conspiracy theories.
Paleoclimate reconstructions are not soley based on argon proxies, if they were I would agree with you. Since multiple studies using different proxies and methodologies all come up with basically the same answer, I don't agree with you and anyone who proffesses to be scientific would likewise disagree. Independent repeatability via diverse paths is the cornerstone of a strong scientific conclusion.
"This is the problem with the global warming crowd. They present their hypotheses, theories, and their models as FACT."
No, this is the problem with the anti global warming crowd. They present their hypotheses, theories, and their models as if nobody had ever thought about it before they came along, they dogmatically assume one study constitutes or refutes an entire scientific disipline.
"In other words, it's a guess, built off of a computer model."
Yes, all science is an eductaed guess, in the same way that the trajectory of a space probe is a guess built from an iterative computer model that calculates an inexact answer to the "three body problem". Computer models are not based on the data they are based on the laws of physics and chemistry, data (gleaned from direct observation, tree ring, ect) is parametized input to those models. Nobody tells the model to build a hurricane, they emerge from the maodel that is soley based on physical "laws" and observational data.
"The reality is a lot of them are social engineers and socialists, not environmental or climate scientists."
Yes, yes, we all know that every national science body on the planet is overflowing with communists who want to destroy the US economy.
"That scientists don't understand this variance when advocating policy is what scares the hell out of me."
Well if scientists don't understand statistics and a random slashdot poster can set them straight with a paragraph of assertions I don't know what to say, "Variance" and "trend" is what this is all about.
"Keep in mind these same people drew the conclusion that therefore this year would be a horrific one as well, and it was a dud."
Ask SE Asia if thier season was a dud, the trend is global, the increased variance is regional. If you consider the N. Atlantic to be the etire N. Hemisphere then you need to look at an atlas. Open your eyes and have a look at how many large scale "once in X hundred/thousand/million year" events are happening.
"it does not play in your favor"
Perhaps not, but I'm positive the links I gave do not put Fred assertions in a very good light.
"distorting what is written there"
I paraphrased the information and gave a source, any percived distortion was entirely due to my loathing of the kind of bi-partisan for-profit subversion of the scientific method that people like Fred represent.
"If someones broken into my house and I have a knife and a gun, the last thing on my mind is going to be picking up the knife because I can inflict a more refined blow that will only wound him. I'm going to shoot him, plain and simple. If I can hit him in a leg, great, but i'm not going to spend too much time worrying about his injury, thats his consideration that needs to be dealt with before the intruder starts to commit a crime."
And when the "intruder" you just shot out of fear turns out to be your daughters boyfriend holding a mobile phone? Or a kid comming down early for breakfast, picks up the bowl of cereal and shoots himself in the head with it? Your worldview regarding firearms makes no sense to me and I sure the feeling is mutual.
My point is, was, and will continue to be that guns inherit the intent of the weilder.
Neglegting accidents at the breakfast table and elsewhere, I whole heartedly agree.
If I bump into her I will pass it on.
All these things are related to but different from climatology.
"But, climate change is still subject to legitimate scientific debate"
Agreed, and "higher resolution" observations and models are essential to that debate!
"we still don't really understand either the extent to which it's happening or its causes."
This is what is understood, it is 5-6yrs out of date and will be updated this year, anecdotely it appears that the 2001 IPCC underestimated the extent and rate of change in many areas but we will have to wait and see. The margin of error for cause and effect is "beyond doubt" in much the same way as germ theory is "beyond doubt".
"(1) the existence of germs is much better proven than humans causing significant climate change"
I call bullshit, re: link above.
"(2) the surgeon's error may cause somebody to die, but the weatherman's is harmless (except, perhaps, to somebody else's agenda)."
And raise you another bullshit, this year Australia's grain crop was down 62% (~17M tons), we are the world's 3rd largest producer. Frost and snow in the middle of a record heat wave killed of our fruit crops in much the same way as California's crops were recently damaged by frost after unseasonal warmth.
Yet it is still true nobody can prove any one of the myrid examples across the globe is caused by AGW anymore than a doctor can prove smoking caused a particular lung tumor. But if the recent back to back hurricane seasons in the US is not an example of extreme climate variability I don't know what is? To wait for unobtainable certainty is a dogmatic failure to adapt to our surroundings. A surefire path to extinction unless of course the basic premise of evolution is also "just a theory".
"I'm pre-med myself, but I have no illusions about the profession."
Someone else also pulled me up on this and as I stated I don't live in Australia and made some "bold" legal assumptions in my post. It does not invalidate my point about the meaning of censorship and the overuse of conclusion mats.
Your post also begs the question, what should be done to improve US standards?
BTW: Your link points to an article by the noteworthy Fred Singer who gained noteriety for his tabbaco industry bullshit before moving on to fossil fuel industry bullshit, I would be surprised if he was unknown to all your lecturers. He is the guy you call when you want to delay something for a few decades (such as officially aknowlaging a smoker has a 1/20 chance of dying from their drug addiction and it is almost a certainty it will damaging their health), yes I'm a smoker but I don't encourage others and don't deny it's illogical.
Fred's own "survival" is liked to his ability to draw grants from vested interests. Since he also lobbies space policy I would not be surprised if he hand in redirecting NASA's gaze away from our own biosphere.
If you want to practise skepticisim, you can talk directly to some of the world's top climate scientists here. Being "pre-med" and all that, you will easily recognise the analogy between "consensus" climate diagnosis and a "firm" medical diagonsis.
"how on earth does a view on climate change affect whether you can accurately predict tomorrow's weather?"
Excellent question since we all know by now that weather != climate. The point is that the AMC have a body of science that says XYZ about the climate, they do not want someone giving the impression that they endorse a diametrically opposed view that they have investigated ad-nauseam. A weather presenter has every right to an opposing view but whilst a member of that organisation s/he should be clear their view is personal and unpublished. Perhaps a surgeon who refuses to wash thier hands but is still allowed to practice is a better analogy.
"What is motivating her to suggest this? You kick doctors out of the AMA because you're concerned about patients."
Climate predictions are like a medical diagnosis for the progression of a "cancer" known as the population explosion. The "cancer" is literally eating and befouling the biosphere at (dare I say) an "alarming" rate. The main symptoms of this "cancer" are climate change, habitat destruction, peak oil and the sixth great extinction. Nobody can say if or when the biosphere will collapse around us, it's like a game of kerplunk, everyone knows we can't keep removing straws indefinitely.
I live in Australia where a doctor requires a license to practice, I just assumed the AMA served a similar function in the US. I stand corrected (again) but I don't think it makes much difference to the point I'm attempting to make.
I stand corrected.
When will people STFU about volcanoes, mars warming, water vapour, solar flux and all the other politically inspired red herrings that have well and trully been acounted for if you look beyond the WSJ. As for TFA they are not censoring anyone, they have a right (if not a duty) to shun psuedo-science in their own ranks.
"I'm saying that a religious belief in a single monolithic truth is extravagantly unlikely to deliver the best choices"
Show me one scientists who claims to know the "truth" about the future and I will show you a fraud. Religious belief is defined as faith without evidence, religious dogma is faith in the face of overwhelming contra evidence, some weathermen are indeed guilty of religious dogma and are a prime source of red-herrings as described above. If they're not guilty and it's all just "groupthink by the establishment", then why did we stop examining animal entrails to know when to plant crops? Why don't we have a weatherman slaughtering a live chicken to decide where the next hurricane will land? Or an astrologer to predict drought by the colour and position of mars? And why aren't they all certified by the AMS and taught in our schools via appropriate stickers in a narrow minded effort that would further cloud any critical thinking by the general public?
BTW: I don't want to discourage anyone from being a skeptic in the scientific sense of the word. Informed and introspective skepticisim is why science is so stunningly successfull (but far from perfect) at predicting future consequences. But be aware that skepticisim must first trample on one's own beliefs and dogma to become a usefull tool.
That should be a standard intelligence test.