An article in the New York Times describes the tensions between climate scientists and meteorologists over the issue of anthropogenic global warming (AGW).  

The debate over global warming has created predictable adversaries, pitting environmentalists against industry and coal-state Democrats against coastal liberals.

But it has also created tensions between two groups that might be expected to agree on the issue: climate scientists and meteorologists, especially those who serve as television weather forecasters.

Climatologists, who study weather patterns over time, almost universally endorse the view that the earth is warming and that humans have contributed to climate change. There is less of a consensus among meteorologists, who predict short-term weather patterns.

By NYT standards, the article is fairly balanced, except that it suggests that the divergence between climatologists and meteorologists stems from the inferiority of the latter: that, unlike most climate scientists, meteorologists do not usually have PhDs degrees, and therefore resent their intellectual superiors; and that meteorologists are too focused on short-term weather predictions to appreciate the long-term trends.    

The article also hints that meteorologists share similar characteristics with ”coal state Democrats” and other AGW skeptics who are beholden to ”industry”:

Whatever the reasons, meteorologists are far more likely to question the underlying science of climate change. A study published in the January 2009 newsletter of the American Geophysical Union, the professional association of earth scientists, found that while nearly 90 percent of some 3,000 climatologists who responded agreed that there was evidence of human-driven climate change, 80 percent of all earth scientists and 64 percent of meteorologists agreed with the statement. Only economic geologists who specialized in industrial uses of materials like oil and coal were more skeptical. 

You see how the reporter was using code words there? What in the world does “economic geologists” mean? Are there non-economic geologists? I guess that non-economic geologists and other earth scientists work for free. The NYT article is slyly inferring that meteorology is an industry-oriented concern, like “economic geology,” energy development, or being a coal state Democrat. The implication is that these fields are important but somehow less pure than climate science, which is implied to be removed from economic considerations.  

Of course, scientists and meteorologists who have been skeptical of global warming alarmism have been accused of being on the dole of oil companies, who are the primary funding sources of the “denial industry.” Exxon-Mobil is often cited as one of the major culprits. Never mind that other oil companies are either hedging their bets on “green” alternatives, while others (such as British Petroleum) are poised to make huge profits from rent-seeking “green” scams like cap and trade.  

The irony of the NYT story is that, if anything, climate scientists are much more beholden to the AGW “alarmism industry” than meteorologists would ever be to the “denial industry.” What would happen to the field of climatology – its occupational outlook - if the alarmism industry faded away? Yes, we’d still need climatologists for a variety of other reasons, but what percentage of the total industry funding and employment base would disappear? 10 percent? 20 percent? Many of the laid off climatologists would be qualified to take jobs as meteorologists, but would such positions be beneath them? Besides, the climatologists would have to fight for jobs with experienced meteorologists whose career prospects would not be impacted, one way or the other, by the fate of AGW.